Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV28720, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff provides a copy of the proposed FAC. (Khodanian Decl., Ex. C.) Plaintiff seeks to add non-Song-Beverly causes of action (violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and violation of the Uniform Commercial Code) in light of the October 31, 2024 decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189. (Khodanian Decl. ¶ 3.) The FAC adds new legal theories, but it does not add any new facts or damages that could require additional discovery. (Motion at p. 4.) Without amendment, “Plaintiff could lose their right to seek a viable and legitimate remedy against Defendant for their vehicle’s defects which have substantially impaired the use, value, and safety of their vehicle.” (Ibid.)

Defendant argues that “Plaintiff made a strategic decision to pursue only Song-Beverly claims against GM, and now that the Supreme Court has ruled those claims are not viable it is time for this case to come to an end.” (Opposition at p. 1.) According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s delay is unjustifiable because he could have asserted these new causes of action previously. (Id. at p. 3.) “Plaintiff was on notice of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Rodriguez, and the Supreme Court’s grant of review, at the time he filed the initial Complaint.” (Id. at p. 4.) But so too was Defendant. Defendant should have known that Magnuson-Moss claims were always available. In fact, Defendant admits that the new causes of action were previously available and do not raise any newly discovered facts or evidence. (See id. at pp. 3-5.) The methods of measuring damages under Song-Beverly, Magnuson-Moss, and the Commercial Code are not so different that they open “new field[s] of inquiry” that prejudice Defendant. (See id. at pp. 6-7.) Defendant will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment.

Defendant also argues that the amendment is futile because the new causes of action are not viable. (Opposition at pp. 8-10.) The Court does not ordinarily consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when determining whether to grant leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Because there is no showing of prejudice, the motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the FAC within five days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court