Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV03064, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03064    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Rosalinda Garcia’s Motion For Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

          Plaintiff Rosalinda Garcia (“Plaintiff”) moves for an Order granting leave to file a First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  Plaintiff’s operative Complaint presently alleges the following two (2) causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1790, et seq.): (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (2) Breach of Express Warranty.  By virtue of Plaintiff’s present Motion, Plaintiff seeks to amend the operative Complaint by adding a third cause of action for “Violation of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act”.  (Barry Decl., Ex. A [redlined copy of Plaintiffs’ proposed First Amended Complaint].)  Plaintiff contends the requested amendment is necessary considering the Court of Appeal’s recent holding in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209 (Rodriguez).  In Rodriguez, the Court of Appeal concluded, with respect to the sale of used goods, liability for breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act lie with distributers and retailer,  “ ‘not the manufacturer,’ unless the manufacturer issue[d] a new warranty along with the sale of the used good.”  (Rodriguez, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 218.)  Plaintiff contends, considering the Rodriguez decision was published after Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint (on approximately January 26, 2022), Plaintiff was understandably unaware of the effects of the Rodriguez decision upon Plaintiff’s causes of action—which concern allegations of liability with respect to a used motor vehicle and a manufacturer (Defendant General Motors, LLC).  (Barry Decl.,  ¶¶ 5-7.)  Plaintiff argues the requested amendment is necessary in order to maintain Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant General Motors, LLC, albeit under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as opposed to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  (Ibid.) 

          Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) provides: “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); see Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)   

Permissible amendments pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) include amendments which add causes of action.  A plaintiff that fails to plead a cause of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the complaint may apply to the court for leave to amend the complaint to assert the cause of action, whether that failure was the result of oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50; see Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c).)  The motion to amend may be filed at any time during the course of the action, on notice to the adverse party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) 

The court has broad discretion to permit amendments to pleadings, and “the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)  “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.”  (Ibid.)  “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . . .”   (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.”  (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) 

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1321, subdivision (a) requires that a motion to amend must: “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed… amended pleading… [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located…”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1321, subd. (a).)  California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) provides, as follows: “[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).) 

Following review of the moving, opposing, and reply arguments, the Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to amend the operative Complaint by filing the proposed First Amended Complaint, which includes an additional cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) 

Preliminarily, Plaintiff has complied with the sum of the procedural requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1321, subdivisions (a) and (b).  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1321, subd. (a), (b).)  Plaintiff’s Motion includes a redlined copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint, which specifies the allegations to be added and/or deleted.  (Barry Decl., Ex. A.)  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motion is accompanied by the Declaration of David N. Barry, Esq., which specifies the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (Id., ¶¶ 2, 5-7.) 

Plaintiff’s requested amendment has been made in a timely manner.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Morgan, supra, 172 Cal.App.2d at p. 530.)  Defendant General Motors, LLC (hereinafter, “Defendant”) argues the motion is untimely as Plaintiff did not file the present Motion until five months following the publication of the Rodriguez decision, on September 1, 2022.  (Opp., at p. 3:20-4:2.)   However, as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, a motion for leave to amend to add a cause of action may be filed “any time during the course of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50 [“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading . . . to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action.”].)  Here, trial in this action is not scheduled to commence until May 30, 2023 (approximately three months from the hearing date upon Plaintiffs’ Motion), and the discovery cut-off remains open.  Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s Motion is timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).)

The Court, additionally, concludes Defendant will not suffer any concrete prejudice as a result of Plaintiff’s filing of the proposed First Amended Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Morgan, supra, 172 Cal.App.2d at p. 530.)  As noted previously, considering trial in this action is approximately three months from the hearing date upon Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendant will be provided with sufficient time to challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s newly added cause of action and conduct discovery with respect to the same.   If necessary, the trial date may be continued.

Lastly, Defendant argues, regardless of whether Plaintiff may pursue a viable cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, “Plaintiffs should [still] be denied leave to amend their complaint . . . because Plaintiffs cannot pursue the first two causes of action in their proposed pleading[,]” given the holding in Rodriguez.  (Mot., at p. 2:3-9.)  Whether or not Plaintiff may prevail on the previously pleaded first and second causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act has no bearing on whether Plaintiff may be properly granted leave to amend to assert a third cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and may be addressed upon a Motion for Summary Judgment, as opposed to a Motion For Leave to Amend.  Indeed, Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which attacks Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action on identical grounds, and is scheduled to be heard on May 30, 2023.   

          Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is granted.  Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint within two court days. 

Dated:  February 24, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court