Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV01618, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01618    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: I

This is (or was) a Song-Beverly Act case.  There is presently a motion for summary judgment on file by the defense as well as a motion for leave to amend by plaintiff.  This ex parte is an effort to advance the latter (which would moot the former).  This involves the fallout from the recent California Supreme Court decision in Rodriguez, issued on October 31, 2024.  As is relevant here, the Court resolved the question whether the Song-Beverly Act applies to cars that were purchased used but where the original warranty had not expired.  Before Rodriguez, there was some authority suggesting that the answer was yes, and so a number of cases, including this one, were filed under the Song-Beverly Act even though the plaintiff had not purchased a new vehicle.  In Rodriguez, the Supreme Court held to the contrary, that is, that the Song-Beverly Act applies only to purchases of new cars, not used ones.  In light of that authority, it is plain that the current case cannot proceed under the Song-Beverly Act.  Plaintiff, however, would like to amend the complaint to allege more typical causes of action for breach of warranty.  After all, plaintiff claims, the warranty is not void; it is still in effect.  It is only the special Song-Beverly Act remedies that are precluded.

The court agrees that the motion for leave to amend ought to be heard sooner rather than later.  Right now, that motion is set for December 26, 2024—the same date as the MSJ.  Normally, the court would urge the parties to work this out, as the court suspects that plaintiff does not intend to oppose the motion insofar as it argues that no Song-Beverly Act cause of action can survive.  And, again normally, the court would leave the dates on calendar.  But here, there is a trial set for next month.  The court will therefore discuss with the parties how best to proceed.  At a minimum, the court will discuss scheduling.  The court’s general thoughts would be to allow the amendment, but recognize that the current trial date might not survive.  Even though the underlying facts would overlap, the court cannot say that they are identical.  Further, the parties might want to take another run at resolution.