Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03282, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03282 Hearing Date: December 19, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Ramiro Ulises Marin, et al. v. General Motors LLC
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs must file the proposed First Amended Complaint within five calendar days of this order.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a lemon law case. On October 24, 2023, plaintiffs Ramiro Ulises Marin and Nicolas Noe Marin Lopez (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty, violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty, and violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2.
On November 18, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend. On December 6, 2024, Defendant opposed the motion. On December 10, 2024, Plaintiffs replied.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)
Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)
Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)
DISCUSSION
Summary of Arguments
In light of the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189 (Rodriguez), which appears to adversely affect Plaintiffs’ current Song-Beverly Act causes of action, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add causes of action under the California Commercial Code, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiffs contend the new allegations demonstrate Defendant and its authorized dealerships failed to permanently eliminate the defects of the subject vehicle during the statutory prescribed period and that the defects will support Plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim under Rodriguez. Plaintiffs contend that the proposed factual allegations were discovered through Defendant’s own discovery served on March 20, 2024, and its public filings. Plaintiffs contend leave to amend was timely sought since it is shortly after the Rodriguez decision was issued. Plaintiffs contend they will be unfairly prejudiced if the motion is denied and that Defendant will not be prejudiced if the motion is granted, as the material disputes in this matter remain the same and trial has not yet been set. Plaintiffs contend there is no authority stating that a motion for leave to amend should be denied just because the amended complaint expands the scope of the litigation.
In opposition, Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because Plaintiffs unjustifiably delayed seeking to add the new cause of action, Defendant would be unfairly prejudiced, and any attempt to pursue the new causes of action would be futile. Defendant contends Plaintiffs offer no explanation or justification for failing to assert these causes of action sooner, and that Plaintiffs do not cite any newly discovered evidence to support their motion. Defendant contends that just because the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Rodriguez does not justify Plaintiffs asserting new causes of action. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs were aware of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Rodriguez and the California Supreme Court’s grant of review when Plaintiffs filed the complaint, but Plaintiffs did not assert these causes of action then. Defendant contends it would be unfairly prejudiced if leave to amend was granted because it would expand the scope of the case, force Defendant to expend additional resources on discovery, and ultimately delay the trial or final resolution of the case. Defendant further contends amendment would be futile because the proposed amended complaint does not state viable Commercial Code or Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims and it does not state a viable claim for violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Analysis
The Court finds Plaintiffs have substantially complied with the requirements for obtaining leave to amend. Plaintiffs included a copy of the proposed amended complaint and identified where the proposed amendments are. (Yang Decl., ¶¶ 7-16, 22, Ex. 1.) Plaintiffs also submitted a supporting declaration specifying the effect of the proposed amendments and why the proposed amendments are necessary and proper. (Yang Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 17-20, 23.)
While the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs could have asserted these causes of action at the outset of the litigation, the Court does not find that sufficient grounds to deny the motion, given the strong policy preference favoring leave to amend. “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) The motion is timely made, as this action has been pending for only approximately one year and no trial date is currently set. Also, no evidence has been presented that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by any statute of limitations. (See Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Rev. Bd. (City of Escondido) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1428.) Defendant also did not present sufficient evidence of prejudice if the motion is granted. It is not enough that these new causes of action may expand the scope of the litigation, especially considering that the parties do not appear to have conducted much discovery thus far. (See Yang Decl., ¶ 20; Est. of Murphy (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 304, 311 [completion of discovery was a factor in upholding trial court’s denial of leave to amend where amendment would expand the scope of the litigation].)
With respect to the viability of Plaintiffs’ new causes of action, the Court prefers to let those issues be addressed in a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings. “[T]he better course of action would have been to allow [Plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings. [Citation.]” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.) Denial of leave to amend for failure to state a cause of action is most appropriate when the defects cannot be cured by amendment. (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280, disapproved on other grounds by Kransco v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs must file the proposed First Amended Complaint within five calendar days of this order.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.