Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 23STCV03698, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV03698, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03698 Hearing Date: February 13, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 13, 2025 TRIAL DATE: November 25, 2025

CASE: Gekht v. Volkswagen Group

CASE NO.: 23STCV03698

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Garry M. Gekht

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Volkswagen Group

CASE HISTORY:

· 2/21/23: Complaint filed.

· 4/26/23: Answer filed.

· 2/9/24: Defendant’s MSJ/MSA filed.

· 5/2/24: Court grants motion to stay action pending Rodriguez v. FCA US.

· 12/13/24: Court lifts stay and sets hearing on MSJ/MSA (Hearing initially set 1/9/25, later continued to 3/25/25.)

· 12/16/24: Plaintiff files instant motion for Leave to File FAC.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff Garry M. Gekht (“Gekht”) sued defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”) on February 21, 2023. He alleges he purchased a defective 2020 Audi Q8 from Defendant on May 2, 2021, and Defendant failed to replace or repurchase it after it exhibited substantial defects that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts.

On May 2, 2024, the Court stayed this action pending the outcome of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189 (“Rodriguez”). The Court lifted the stay on December 13, 2024. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in that case, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on December 16, 2024.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Leave to Amend

Legal Standard

¿¿ A party may file an amended pleading once without leave of the court at any time before a demurrer or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed as long as it is served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 472(a), 430.40(a).) Outside that timeframe, a party must obtain leave of the court to amend its pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).)

The court may grant leave to amend a pleading, in its discretion, “upon any terms as may be just,” if it finds that permitting the amendment would be “in furtherance of justice,” and that the adverse party was noticed. (Ibid.) The court may grant leave to amend at any stage of the proceeding, even “after commencement of trial.” (Id., § 576; see Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading 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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

A separate declaration must also 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.

(Id., subd. (b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirements for his motion. The moving papers and accompanying declaration enumerate his proposed amendments and their effect. (Mot., 3:8-4:9; Tallent Decl., ¶¶ 10-25.) A proposed amended pleading is attached to Counsel’s declaration. (Tallent Decl., Exh. 2.) The declaration explains why the amendment is necessary and proper and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Tallent Decl., ¶¶ 10-25.) It also indicates that certain relevant facts were uncovered during these proceedings. (Id., ¶ 12.)

The Rodriguez ruling, supra, 17 Cal.5th 189, appears to adversely affect Plaintiffs’ current Song-Beverly Act causes of action. Consequently, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add causes of action under the California Commercial Code, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Defendant argues Plaintiff could have asserted his new claims at the outset of this action.

Even so, “[i]f [a] 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[,] and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, bracketed changes added.)

Defendant argues it will be unduly prejudiced by Plaintiff’s proposed amendment. The Court disagrees. Trial is not until November. There is time to conduct such limited new discovery as might be necessary and file a renewed motion for summary judgment. This inconvenience must be measured against the prejudice to Plaintiff for failing to grant leave, which would eliminate whole theories of liability reasonably omitted from the initial pleading.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to electronically file its proposed amended pleading within ten (10) days.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2025 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.