Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV03838, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV03838 Hearing Date: March 4, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE
NAME: Jose
de Jesus Vazquez v. General Motors, LLC
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE
RULING
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file and serve the First Amended Complaint within five calendar days of this order.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a lemon law case. On November 7, 2024, plaintiff Jose de Jesus Vazquez (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for breach of express warranties and breach of implied warranty.
On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a first amended complaint. The motion is unopposed.
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
Plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC) due to the recent California Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189 (Rodriguez), which limits the applicability of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in cases involving used vehicles. Plaintiff seeks to replace those claims with claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The Court finds Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements for obtaining leave to file an amended pleading. Plaintiff submitted the proposed FAC with markings indicating the proposed deletions and additions. (Morrow III, Decl., Ex. 1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration also explains the effect of the proposed amendments, why the proposed amendments are necessary and proper, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Morrow III, Decl., ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (b)(1)-(b)(2), (b)(4).) The policy favoring leave to amend is strong. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1047.) Additionally, the Court construes Defendant’s lack of opposition as a concession that Plaintiff’s motion is meritorious. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].)
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file and serve the First Amended Complaint within five calendar days of this order.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice
of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.