Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV15185, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 6, 2025

Case Name: Bonilla, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV30462

Matter: Motions for Leave to File FAC

Moving Party: Plaintiffs John Bonilla and Nicole Davilla

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is a lemon law action that was filed on September 19, 2022.  Plaintiffs John Bonilla and Nicole Davilla currently assert Song-Beverly claims.  They now seek leave to file a first amended complaint in which they add theories of liability under the Magnuson-Moss Act and the California Commercial Code.

Defendant General Motors LLC argues that Plaintiffs’ Song-Beverly claims were “rejected by the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, ___ Cal.5th ___, 2024 WL 4631069 (Oct. 31, 2024). In Rodriguez, the Supreme Court held that ‘a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty does not qualify as a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” under [SongBeverly]’s definition of “new motor vehicle” unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale.’ Id. at *1 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(e)(2)). As a result of Rodriguez, Plaintiffs’ Song-Beverly claims—which relate to the purchase of a used vehicle in a transaction in which GM did not extend a new car warranty—are no longer viable. Now, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint in order to assert entirely new claims against GM. But these new claims could have been asserted from the outset of this case, more than two and a half years ago. Plaintiffs made a strategic decision to only pursue Song-Beverly breach of warranty claims against GM and, now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that those claims are not viable, it is time for this case to come to an end.” 

The trial date is June 16, 2025.

The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473, 576.)  In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.”  (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.)  Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)  The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.  (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

The Court finds that the subject amendments will cause little to no prejudice that, if necessary, could be negated by a trial continuance.  Further, a demurrer is the proper vehicle by which to challenge Plaintiffs’ claims.  

Therefore, the Motion is granted.  The FAC should be filed within 10 days.

Moving party to give notice.