Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: BC711352, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC711352    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiff Delinda W. Smith’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff has thirty days to file the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Delinda W. Smith’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED as final judgment has not been entered.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action under the Song-Beverly Act. The Complaint alleges as follows. In October 2015, Plaintiff Delinda W. Smith (“Smith”) purchased a used KIA Rio (“Subject Vehicle”) that had a balance remaining on its express written warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7.) The Subject Vehicle had 20,744 miles on its odometer at the time of purchase. (Defendant KIA America, Inc.’s Statement of Stipulated Facts, ¶ 2.) At the time of the initial sale, KIA sold the Subject Vehicle with a 5-year, 60,000 mile warranty, and a Limited Powertrain Warranty that also lasted for 5 years, and 60,000 miles. (Id., ¶¶ 4-6.) During the warranty period, the vehicle developed several defects, which Defendant KIA Motors America Inc. (“KIA”) was unable to repair. (Compl. ¶ 8.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On June 22, 2018, Smith filed the Complaint asserting five causes of action:

1.    Violation of Subdivision (D) of Civil Code Section 1793.2;

2.    Violation of Subdivision (B) of Civil Code Section 1793.2;

3.    Violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2;

4.    Breach of Express Written Warranty; and,

5.    Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability

On April 29, 2022, KIA filed a Brief Regarding Used Car Remedies Under the Beverly-Song Act (“Motion for Non-Suit” or “Motion”). The Motion discusses the recent Rodriguez decision, which KIA argues precludes Smith’s claim.

On May 4, 2022, the Court held the Final Status Conference. At this hearing, the Court recognized that KIA’s Brief essentially operated as a Motion for Non-Suit and ordered the parties to file a timely Opposition and Reply for the Court’s consideration.

On May 18, 2022, Smith filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

On June 20, 2022, the Court granted KIA’s Motion for Non-Suit as to all claims brought under the Song-Beverly Act but recognized that Smith still had the instant Motion for Leave to Amend pending, and therefore judgment was not entered.

On July 1, 2022, KIA filed a Memorandum of Costs.

On July 20, 2022, Smith filed the instant Motion to Tax Costs.

On October 5, 2022, KIA filed an Opposition to Smith’s Motion to Tax Costs.

On October 11, 2022, Smith filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION 

I.              MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Smith moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

When a party moves to amend a pleading, “courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. [Citations.]” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) In ruling on this type of motion, prejudice to another party is the main concern. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.) The type of prejudice the court is to be concerned with should be something beyond simply having to cope with a potentially successful new legal theory of recovery that has been revealed during discovery. (Ibid.) Instead, the court should look for delays in the trial date, loss of critical evidence, extensive increase in the costs of preparation and other similar circumstances that create prejudice to another party. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) 

Here, Smith seeks to add a cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). (Tomas Decl. ¶ 14.) Smith argues that the amendment is necessary, as, when the Motion was filed, KIA’s Motion for Nonsuit regarding Rodriguez’s affect on used car sales under the Song-Beverly Act was pending and was potentially fatal to their claim. Smith contends that the Rodriguez decision represents new and unforeseeable facts, as it clarified that used cars sold with a balance remaining on their original warranties, such as Smith’s, do not qualify for remedy under the Song-Beverly Act.

Smith contends that this same issue was addressed in Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4^th 905. In Dagher, plaintiff brought a claim against defendant dealership under the Song-Beverly Act. The trial court granted summary judgment as to the Song-Beverly Act claims, as plaintiff’s vehicle was used and purchased from a private retailer. However, the Dagher Court reversed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action under MMWA, finding that “Plaintiff admittedly has some viable cause of action under Magnuson-Moss, and this record supports a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend the current complaint.” (Dagher at p. 928.)

In Opposition, KIA argues first that the instant Motion is untimely, as it was filed years into litigation, and just before a hearing on a dispositive motion. However, Smith filed the motion days after KIA filed its bench brief regarding Rodriguez, and months after the Rodriguez decision was issued. Accordingly, the motion is not untimely.

Next, KIA argues that Plaintiff’s reliance on Dagher is unavailing, as Dagher should have put Plaintiff on notice that the MMWA claims were available to be plead from the beginning. However, the Court finds that the situation in Dagher is substantially similar to here, and that Plaintiff’s delay in including the MMWA claim in the initial Complaint has already been addressed above.

Finally, KIA argues that the MMWA causes are futile, as they are predicated on the Song Beverly Act causes that have already been dismissed. Additionally, KIA objects to the new cause on privity grounds, and argues that Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action under MMWA.

While these are compelling arguments, California Courts’ preferred practice is to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or other appropriate proceedings. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

The Court finds that the delay in making the proposed amendments is justified due to the Rodriguez decision. Additionally, as the MMWA causes are brought under the same facts as the initial Song-Beverly causes, there will not need to be extensive discovery and prejudice to KIA is minimal. Because of this, and because of the Court’s obligation to grant leave to amend liberally, Smith’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Smith is to file the First Amended Complaint within thirty days.

II.             MOTION TO TAX COSTS

As no final judgment has been entered, and the case proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint, KIA’s Memorandum of Costs is moot. Accordingly, Smith’s Motion to Strike Costs is GRANTED.

DATED:  October 18, 2022

___________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court