Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01543, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01543    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 3/7/25                                                      TRIAL DATE: 4/28/25

Case #23CHCV01543

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

Motion filed on 7/3/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Setareh Radbod and David Mat

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to CCP 473(a) and CCP 576.

 

RULING: The motion is denied.

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Setareh Radbod and David Mat’s (Plaintiffs) purchase of a new 2021 Honda Odyssey (the Vehicle).  On 5/26/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant) for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment.

 

On 10/27/23, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the 2nd cause of action and granted Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages, both with 30 days leave to amend.  (See 10/27/23 Minute Order).  Plaintiffs did not file a First Amended Complaint as ordered.  On 2/5/24, Defendant answered the complaint. 

 

On 7/3/24, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting them leave to file a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to CCP 473(a) and CCP 576.  Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend under CCP 473(a) and CCP 576 appears to be misplaced.    In ruling on the demurrer to the original complaint, the Court already determined that Plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in their fraud cause of action by  amending their pleading.  However, Plaintiffs failed to meet the deadline for such amendment.  As such, it appears that the proper basis for relief is mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect under CCP 473(b) which resulted in the failure to timely file the First Amended Complaint.  In either case, the motion fails. 

 

The request for relief under CCP 473(a) and CCP 576 fails because the motion does not comply with the requirements set forth in CRC 3.1324.  The motion does not state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and/or what allegations are proposed to be added by page, paragraph and line number.  See CRC 3.1324(a)(2), (3).  Additionally, the declaration filed in support of the motion fails to state specifically when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and/or the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  See CRC 3.1324(b)(3), (4).  Without providing a specific date, the declaration filed in support of the motion vaguely states that “Plaintiffs’ counsel became aware of [the failure to timely file the First Amended Complaint] whilst meeting and conferring with defense counsel, Bryan Reynolds, regarding Defendant’s discovery responses.”  (See Lupinek Decl. ¶6).   Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Case Management Statement filed on 3/19/24 establishes that, at the latest, Plaintiffs and/or their counsel were aware of the failure to timely file the First Amended Complaint by that date.  (See Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Case Management Statement p.1:5-12).  Despite Plaintiffs’ indication in the Supplemental Case Management Statement that they would be filing a motion for leave to amend, or in the alternative, a motion for relief under CCP 473(b), without explanation, Plaintiffs failed to file the instant motion until 7/3/24, approximately 3 ½ months later. 

 

Granting Plaintiffs leave to add a fraud cause of action and a claim for punitive damages back into the case at this time would prejudice Defendant as there is insufficient time for Defendant to challenge the claims by demurrer and/or motion to strike before the 4/28/25 trial date, if Defendant still finds the allegations in the First Amended Complaint to be deficient.  Further, there is insufficient time before the trial date to conduct written discovery on these issues.   

 

With regard to relief under CCP 473(b), although the motion is titled as a “Motion for Leve to File a First Amended Complaint, Or In The Alternative, For Relief Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473,”  Plaintiffs do not cite CCP 473(b) in the notice or memorandum of points and authorities.  While the memorandum of points and authorities mentions counsel’s mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect as a cause of the failure to timely file the First Amended Complaint (without citing CCP 473(b)), the declaration of counsel filed in support of the motion does not expressly accept fault for the failure to timely file the First Amended Complaint.  (See Motion, p.3:22-24).  Rather, in the supporting declaration, counsel blames “technological errors” for the failure to timely file the First Amended Complaint.  (See Lupinek Decl. ¶¶3-5).

 

Even if Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration is deemed sufficient for accepting fault for the failure to file the First Amended Complaint within 30 days of the Court’s 10/27/23 ruling of the demurrer and having been served with notice of the ruling on the same date, the declaration does not address the failure to take any action to remedy the error until filing this motion on 7/3/24 when, as noted above, the court record shows that Plaintiffs and/or their counsel were aware of the failure by 3/19/24, at the latest.  (See Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Case Management Statement p.1:5-12).  Additionally, the Court set the 4/28/25 trial date on 3/20/24, yet Plaintiffs still waited another 3 ½ months to file the instant motion.  Further, even if 3/7/25 was the earliest hearing date available when the motion was filed, Plaintiffs made no effort to have the hearing date advanced so that there would be sufficient time to conduct any necessary additional discovery before the trial date. 

 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ have failed to establish that they are entitled to relief under CCP 473(b).

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is denied.