Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV23109, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV23109    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs Michael Model and Soheila Model

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendants BMW of North America, LLC, Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, and South Bay Motors, LLC

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Michael Model and Soheila Model (“Plaintiffs”) move the court for an order permitting them to file a Second Amended Complaint to (1) strike (i) the 10th cause of action for negligent failure to recall, (ii) the 12th cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, (iii) various factual allegations, and (iv) the prayers for restitution and injunctive relief, and (2) supplement the factual allegations supporting the remaining causes of action.  (Genzuk Decl., ¶ 2.)  Plaintiffs assert that they became aware of the facts necessitating the proposed amendments after conducting fact and expert discovery.  (Genzuk Decl., ¶ 2; Mot., p. 5:12-16.)

Defendants BMW of North America, LLC, Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, and South Bay Motors, LLC (“Defendants”) oppose the motion, arguing that (1) the new factual allegations change Plaintiffs’ legal theory underlying the product liability claims since (i) in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged defects with the deployment of the airbag (FAC ¶¶ 20, 21 [“the Airbag was not safely tethered and/or contained a defective inflator and/or used a defective propellent and/or used a propellant without a chemical drying agent”]), but (ii) now seek to allege, in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, that the subject vehicle was defective in its design, manufacture, and installation “based on the lack of crashworthiness of the driver compartment to prevent a head strike and injury to seat-belted drivers,” which was foreseeable as to “the interaction and performance of the seat, the restraint system, the air bag system, and the physical configuration of the vehicle, including the header and windshield” (Proposed SAC ¶ 16); (2) Plaintiffs delayed by filing this motion “more than a month after the close of fact discovery and more than two months after the designation of expert witnesses[;]” (3) the motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 by failing to specify when the new facts giving rise to the amendment; and (4) granting Plaintiffs’ motion would prejudice Defendants by depriving them of the ability to file a demurrer, conduct discovery, and prepare a defense as to the new factual allegations. 

“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 . . . .  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 . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿473, subd. (a)(1).)  “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) 

The court finds that (1) Plaintiffs have substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; (2) it is in furtherance of justice to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to strike the superfluous causes of action and to add factual allegations based on the information obtained through fact and expert discovery; and (3) Defendants have not demonstrated that they will be unduly prejudiced by the amendment.  The court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1047.)

First, the court finds that Plaintiffs have substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 by submitting the declaration of their counsel, who attests that “Plaintiffs did not become aware of the facts necessitating the proposed amendments until they were revealed through fact and expert discovery.”  (Genzuk Decl., ¶ 2.)  

Second, the court finds that it is in furtherance of justice to permit Plaintiffs to allege all potentially viable claims against Defendants in order to resolve all disputed matters in one case.

Finally, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that they will be substantially prejudiced by this amendment.  Although the court notes that trial is currently scheduled to begin on October 25, 2023, Defendants may still file an ex parte application or other appropriate motion requesting that the court continue trial and reopen discovery.  The court also notes that Defendants have requested, in opposition, that the court continue trial for one year.  The court does not rule on that request in connection with this motion.  The court expects the parties’ counsel to meet and confer to determine whether the parties will file a stipulation and proposed order to continue the trial or, alternatively, any party may file an ex parte application to continue the trial based on a showing of good cause. 

ORDER

The court grants plaintiffs Michael Model and Soheila Model’s motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint.

The court orders plaintiffs Michael Model and Soheila Model to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, in the form attached as Exhibit B to the declaration of Joshua A. Genzuk, within 5 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiffs Michael Model and Soheila Model to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 31, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court