Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00013170-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 11, 2024

04/12/2024  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) 37-2022-00013170-CU-BC-CTL DAVILA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Claudia Davila's motion for leave to amend the complaint is DENIED.

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 to add a sixth cause of action for fraud by omission that relates to a purported 'Transmission Defect' in Plaintiff's vehicle and other vehicles equipped with the same 7-speed dual clutch automatic transmission ('DCT') and Transmission Control Module ('TCM'), one or both of which allegedly make the vehicles 'prone to sudden, premature, and catastrophic failure.' The proposed first amended complaint includes extensive allegations related to the Transmission Defect and Defendant's knowledge and concealment of the defect. Plaintiff contends the claim arises from the same nucleus of facts as her Song-Beverly claims and has merit. She further contends she did not delay in seeking amendment, as she could not confirm its viability until a vehicle inspection was conducted by the parties' respective experts in December 2023, and this inspection had been delayed at Defendant's request.

Finally, Plaintiff argues Defendant will not be unfairly prejudiced by the amendment because the new fraud claim turns on the same evidence (already sought in discovery) as her Song-Beverly claims.

In opposition, Defendant points out that Plaintiff knew or should have known about the 'new' evidence she now relies on to support leave to amend, such as the 2016 class action purportedly involving the same type of transmission, and the TSBs Plaintiff argues support Defendant's knowledge of the defect.

Defendant also argues that because Plaintiff had possession of the vehicle, she could have learned anything from the December 2023 surface level vehicle inspection far earlier, and therefore could have sought leave to amend far earlier, rather than on the eve of trial (set for April 5, 2024 at the time Plaintiff filed the motion, and then continued to May 10, 2024 at Plaintiff's request). Finally, Defendant argues the proposed fraud claim is inadequately pled and is therefore subject to demurrer.

Having considered the parties' respective arguments, the court is not convinced Plaintiff did not delay in bringing her amendment, and it has serious doubts whether the proposed fraud claim is adequately pled and capable of being cured by further amendment. Plaintiff has maintained possession of the vehicle, and her claim that '[u]nilateral vehicle inspections are not common in Song-Beverly Act cases given the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096680  14 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DAVILA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00013170-CU-BC-CTL considerable time and expense involved,' (Reply, p. 5), is tenuous at best. The proposed amended complaint also appears to lack sufficient allegations to trigger a duty of disclosure on the part of Defendant. Given the age of this case and the depth of discovery so far, the court questions whether Plaintiff can in good faith allege additional facts that might cure this defect.

Defendant has also made a sufficient showing of prejudice. Trial is currently set for next month and this case has passed the two-year mark. Although the court is mindful of the liberal policy in California of allowing amendments to the pleadings all the way up to and, in some instances, during trial, under the circumstances here the court concludes the proposed amendment should not be permitted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096680  14