Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV26629, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26629    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 1-6-25 a/f 6-12-25 (via 12-18-25 ex parte order)

Case: 23STCV26629

Trial Date: 2-18-25

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Robert Sullivan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Lift Stay and Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff Robert Sullivan filed a complaint for violations of Civil Code sections 1791.1, 1793.2, and 1794. Defendant General Motors LLC (GM) answered the complaint on December 1, 2023.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Robert Sullivan moves for leave to file a first amended complaint in order to add a cause of action for Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312). [Declaration of Peter Maissian, Exhibit, C.] Plaintiff moves for leave to amend due to a recent change in the law regarding recovery under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act when the California Supreme Court found used cars with remaining original warranty remains subject to consumer law warranty protections. (Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189 [326 Cal.Rptr.3d 440, 450-451, 557 P.3d 735, 744].) GM in opposition contends used vehicle warranty claims are now barred under the Song Beverly Act (SBA), Plaintiff was aware of the California Supreme Court review of the case and dilatorily chose to omit a Magnuson-Moss relief claim and strategically chose to only pursue now barred SBA claims in the original action, and leave to amend on the eve of trial would significantly prejudice GM. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The court reviews the standard.

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).

Plaintiff presents a copy of the proposed pleading. GM raises no objection to format of the motion.

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 court finds no bar to the proposed Magnuson-Moss claim. GM concedes as much. The court otherwise declines to rule on the disposition of the SBA claims in the instant motion, but assuming a potential bar to said existing claims, disallowing leave to amend would effectively foreclose any relief to Plaintiff. The court considers the context of this potential result under the diligence standards.

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.) The entire motion rests on the October 31, 2024, issuance of the decision, without any address of the prior failure to omission of a Magnuson-Moss claim. The court finds the timing of the motion appropriate given the publication date of the latest case on used car warranty claims under SBA, Magnuson-Moss, et al., but declines to speculate on the reasons for the failure to plead alternative claims. The court however also finds that barring such relief would unfairly prejudice Plaintiff for the strategic decisions of counsel. The court therefore grants the motion for leave to amend.

While the facts remain the same, and the parties were presumably ready to proceed to trial, to the extent GM validly raises prejudice and may seek to challenge the SBA claims (barring a potential dismissal by Plaintiff), the court will also continue the trial date, if determined necessary at the time of the hearing. The court otherwise orders the separate filing of the amended complaint within 10 days of this order. GM to file a responsive pleading within all statutory deadlines.

Plaintiff to provide notice.