Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00011610-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00011610-CU-BC-CTL PADILLA PEREZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Yara Padilla Perez's unopposed motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

Defendant General Motors LLC's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as moot.

Motion for Leave to Amend As of August 3, 2023, Defendant has not filed any opposition to Plaintiff's motion. Pursuant to this court's local rules, a failure to respond can be regarded as a concession the motion has merit. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.19, subd. (B).) The trial court has wide discretion to allow amendments to the pleadings, and such discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments. (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 178; see also Kittredge v. Superior Court (213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend should generally be granted when the amendment is necessary for the pleader to fully present his or her case and the amendment does not unfairly prejudice the defendant by raising new issues the defendant had no opportunity to defend. (See Bd. Of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154; see also Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 31.) Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint to add strict liability and negligence claims that stem from a motor vehicle accident involving the subject vehicle that occurred on November 27, 2022. Plaintiff wants to add allegations that she lost control of the vehicle because the brakes and steering wheel locked up, which caused her to collide with a concrete divider at high speed and sustain neck, back, and nose injuries. Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend partially in response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings Defendant filed and served on March 22, 2023, in order to clarify that her 'used' vehicle was dealer-owned and that she is the first consumer to have owned it.

The facts giving rise to Plaintiff's strict liability and negligence claims occurred after Plaintiff filed her complaint but involve the same vehicle. The court agrees that it makes more sense to add these claims to the instant action, rather than have Plaintiff file a new case. Moreover, Plaintiff's intention to add facts regarding the nature of her 'used' vehicle that clarify it was dealer-owned is a reasonable response to Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, as the sole basis for Defendant's motion is that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring Song-Beverly claims because her vehicle was not new. However, Civil Code section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) specifies that a 'new motor vehicle' includes 'a dealer-owned vehicle and a 'demonstrator' or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty . . . .' Thus, the defect giving rising to the motion can be cured by the amendment Plaintiff proposes.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2981477  8 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PADILLA PEREZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00011610-CU-BC-CTL Defendant will also not be prejudiced. Although trial is currently set for October 27, 2023, the court will be amenable to further trial continuances, given the new causes of action and need to conduct discovery on those additional claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint. Plaintiff has until August 18, 2023, to file an amended complaint.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 'A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.' (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) As with a demurrer, the filing of an amended complaint renders moot a motion for judgment on the pleadings directed at the original complaint. (JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477 [citing Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054]; see also Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884 ['[A]n amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.'].) As explained the above, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. This effectively renders moot Defendants' motion, which was directed at the currently operative original complaint.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as moot.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2981477  8