Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV02607, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02607    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: 45

DONALD ANGUIANO vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Plaintiff donald anguiano’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint   

Date of Hearing:        June 2, 2025                                       Trial Date:       February 9, 2026

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        24STCV02607

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Donald Anguiano

Responding Party:     Defendant General Motors LLC

BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff Donald Anguiano filed a complaint against General Motors, LLC for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

discussion

Plaintiff Donald Anguiano moves this court for an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add statutory claims under 15 U.S.C § 2301-2312, et seq, and a Uniform Commercial Code cause of action in addition to the existing claims.

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (CCP § 473(a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (CCP §473(a)(1); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) As judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (See Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)¿ 

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. (CRC rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (CRC rule 3.1324(b).)¿ 

Plaintiff moves to amend their complaint to add two cause of actions under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Uniform Commercial Code, which arise out of the same facts already alleged in the complaint. The supporting declaration sufficiently addresses why amendment is necessary, the effects of the amendment, and why the request was not made sooner. Specifically, Plaintiff makes the amendment in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, which precludes Plaintiff from seeking recovery under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As such, Plaintiff did not anticipate the need to seek leave to amend at an earlier time. (Khodanian Decl. ¶3.)

GM opposes the motion on the grounds the delay was unjustifiable and GM would be unfairly prejudiced. The court disagrees. The fact Plaintiff could have included the causes of action in the original complaint does not mean Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in seeking leave to amend. As noted by Plaintiff, at the time of filing Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 112 was controlling and Plaintiff had valid claims. Moreover, it is unclear what additional resources GM would need to expend on discovery or what the additional discovery is. Defendant also argues the amendment would be futile but fails to show they are not viable on the face of the complaint. Defendant is free to raise such arguments on demurrer, summary judgment and the like.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.