Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV05295, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05295    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

i.      introduction 

On October 23, 2024, plaintiff Jeffrey David Flagg (“Plaintiff”) filed this lemon law action against defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”). The action arises from his acquisition of a 2019 Ford Fusion (“Subject Vehicle”) on December 1, 2021, and asserts causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”).

          On March 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The proposed FAC replaces his claims under the SBA with a cause of action under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (“MWA”). Plaintiff argues that “the amendment is warranted by recent legal developments that narrow the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act’s coverage for certain used vehicles.” (Motion, p. 3.) The Court notes that while Plaintiff’s proposed FAC also apparently amends his other causes of action pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 and negligent repair, Plaintiff does not advance any argument for those amendments in his memorandum of points and authorities; therefore, the Court only addresses the proposed MMWA claim.  

          On April 21, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition brief.

          No reply brief is on file with the Court.

II.     LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.” (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.) “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial . . . this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’ [Citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

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.  (Cal. 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)

III.    DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the amendments and that it will be prejudiced if the motion is granted. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s delay in filing this motion is inexcusable because the “recent legal development” motivating the amendment was the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Rodriguez v. FCA, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, issued on October 31, 2024. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s 5-month delay was inexcusable and cites to Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 672, 649, in which the appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion for leave to amend when the plaintiff had taken no action for five months after learning of the facts giving rise to the need to amend.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s attempt to salvage his claim under the MMWA is futile because there was no privity of contract between them and Defendant made no representations to Plaintiff that he was covered by the express warranty. (See Atkinson v. Elk Corporation of Texas (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 212, Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112.) Defendant argues that allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint would prejudice Defendant by forcing it to incur unnecessary fees to defend against a legally meritless claim.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff fails to show that his delay in seeking leave to amend was excusable. Like in Fisher, Plaintiff waited 5 months after the California Supreme Court issued its decision on October 31, 2024, before bringing this motion. Also, by failing to file a reply brief, Plaintiff concedes that his MMWA claim has no merit and that further litigation would prejudice Defendant. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is DENIED.

IV.    CONCLUSION

The motion for leave to amend is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 2nd day of May 2025 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.