Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23STCV02341, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV02341, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02341 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 3-7-24 a/f 5-21-24

Case # 23STCV02341

Trial Date: 9-9-24

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Yu, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Zhe Yu and/or YzzJ, LLC leased a certain 2021 Mercedes-Benz vehicle. Plaintiffs allege the vehicle suffers from leaking fluid issues and a defective battery. On February 2, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiffs Zhe Yu and/or YzzJ, LLC moves for leave to file a first amended complaint in order to add additional an additional claim for Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC in opposition challenges the motion on grounds of dilatory delay on the eve of the motion for summary judgment. Defendant also challenges the lack of good cause for leave in the proposed cause of action lacks sufficient factual support. Finally, Defendant maintains prejudice as a result of the motion. The court electronic filing system shows no filed reply on or before the specially set March 5, 2024, filing date at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A motion for leave to amend must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, which states as follows:

“(a) Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(b) Supporting declaration

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…” (emphasis added).

Dilatory delays and prejudice to the opposing parties is a valid ground for denial. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a); Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) The court will not generally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave, instead deferring such determinations for a demurrer or motion to strike, unless the proposed amendment fails to state a valid claim as a matter of law. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1045, 1048; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280–281 disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

The motion comes approximately one year and two weeks after the initial complaint and lacks any specific explanation for the timing of the motion. [Declaration of Andrew Matera.] Other than pro forma citation to the basis for leave and a denial of prejudice, the court finds the motion lacks any context for the timing, such as the later discovery of facts.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff raises argument that the core facts support the subject amendment and should be considered before adjudication of the action. “[T]he California Supreme Court has noted regarding ‘procedures which apply to demurrers, motions for summary judgment, and motions for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court should ... allow an opportunity to amend the complaint to include the missing allegations [that make a complaint legally insufficient].’ (Citation.) Accordingly, ‘if summary judgment is granted on the ground that the complaint is legally insufficient, but it appears from the materials submitted in opposition to the motion that the plaintiff could state a cause of action, the trial court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint before entry of judgment.’ (Citation.) Furthermore, a request for leave to amend a complaint need not be made before a hearing on a motion for summary judgment; rather, it may be made at the hearing or any time before entry of judgment. (Citation.) Denial of leave to amend a complaint is an abuse of discretion unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment to state a viable cause of action. (Citation.)” (Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1384–1385.)

“[A]mendments are usually allowed after summary judgments have been filed only to repair complaints that are legally insufficient—in other words, those that would be subject to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Citations.) Appellants' proposed amendment would not cure a legally insufficient complaint, but rather, would state a different theory of recovery. Such an amendment is impermissible. (Citation.)” (Van v. Target Corp. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1387 (footnote 2).)

The court specially set the subject hearing via ex parte order on February 21, 2024. Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed opposition to the impending motion for summary judgment. The opposition incorporates argument on the proposed cause of action, though the motion for summary judgment itself appears to lack any apparent argument on this particular section under the reasonableness of time to repair statutory standard. (The court accepts potential argument that the issue may be subsumed into other portions for consideration of the motion.) The opposition to the motion otherwise lacks a formal acknowledgment of the instant motion for leave. (Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1384–1385.)

While the motion can be denied on the failure to comply with the procedural rules accounting for the timing of the request, nothing in the motion otherwise presents a legal bar for leave to amend, or significant prejudice to Mercedes-Benz. The arguments in opposition challenging the factual sufficiency are beyond the scope of the subject motion. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.), supra, 213 Cal. App.3d at p. 1048.) The court therefore finds the circumstances justify relief.

The impending motion for summary judgment, and public policy preference for the substantive adjudication of potential meritorious claims, supports a proactive grant of leave rather than a reactive ruling after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment currently scheduled for March 12, 2024. Given the September 9, 2024, trial date, and motion for summary judgment scheduled nearly six months prior to said trial date, the court finds minimal prejudice. Mercedes-Benz remains capable of challenging any potential arguments regarding the additions to the operative complaint pre-trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-487; Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)

The motion is therefore granted. Moving party to file a separate copy of the first amended complaint within 10 calendar days of the order.

In order to allow for time to preserve the statutory filing guidelines under the current trial date, the court continues the motion for summary judgment to July 25, 2024. Mercedes-Benz may file an amended motion for summary judgment pursuant to the reserved date within statutory guidelines. (Code Civ Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).) Any revised opposition and reply shall also be due pursuant to the statutory established dates. If no revised motion is filed, the court will proceed with the currently filed motion, opposition and anticipated reply.

Trial date of September 9, 2024, to stand.

Plaintiff to give notice.