Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV17975, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: June 3, 2025

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

Case No.: 22STCV39693

Matter: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Luoise Vasquez

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.  FAC is to be filed separately within 10 days.

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 matter that was filed on December 21, 2022.  Plaintiff Luoise Vasquez now seeks leave to file a first amended complaint in order “to delete causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, add causes of action under California Commercial Code section 2313, the Magnuson-Moss 2 Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C section 2301, et seq., the Consumers Legal Remedies Act . . . .”

The trial date is September 22, 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.)

Defendant GM opposes the Motion because “Plaintiff made a strategic choice to pursue only Song-Beverly claims against GM, calculating that either (1) this case would resolve before the Supreme Court decided Rodriguez or (2) the Supreme Court would decide Rodriguez in Plaintiff’s favor. Only after used vehicle buyers lost in the Supreme Court did Plaintiff file[ ] the instant motion.”

Given that the trial date is about four months away and any brief continuance for discovery would be inconsequential, the Court cannot find sufficient prejudice to preclude the subject amendments.  Further, GM failed to cite any cases that are applicable to the instant scenario.  

GM also argues that the new claims would require different discovery and that Plaintiff fails to plead viable claims.

The proper vehicle to challenge the pleadings, however, is a demurrer.

Additionally, the new discovery should not be so extensive as to require a lengthy trial continuance. 

For all these reasons, the Motion is granted.  The FAC is to be separately filed within 10 days.

Moving party to give notice.