BEALE vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al.

24CV014244: BEALE vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al. 05/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874- 2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and (2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court. If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28 SIP Address: 16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16039062174 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

24CV014244: BEALE vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al. 05/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 54

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Stanton Beale’s (“Plaintiff’) motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is ruled upon as follows. Overview On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Lemon Law action against Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”). Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a pre-owned Chevrolet. On October 31, 2024, the California Supreme Court opinion in Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189 limited the definition of “new motor vehicles” as defined by the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to delete the causes of action affected by the holding in Rodriguez, and to add causes of action based on other statutes which are not barred by the Rodriguez holding. Trial is not yet set in this action.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), the Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding. As judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit, courts liberally permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1973) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Denial is rarely justified. “If the 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; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) ¶ 6:639.) As long as no prejudice to defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014244: BEALE vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al. 05/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 54

is shown, the liberal policy regarding the amendment prevails. (Mesler v. Bragg Mgt. Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 297.) Generally, courts allow the amendment and then let the parties test the legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings. (See Atkinson v. Elk Corp (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760, citing Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) While California law holds that this leave is to be granted liberally to accomplish substantial justice for both parties (Hirsa v.

Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489), a party requesting leave to amend must also comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment and must state what allegations will be deleted or added and where they are located by page, paragraph and line number. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Further, the motion must be supported by a separate declaration that specifies the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

A court does not abuse its discretion by insisting that a party follow the applicable rules of procedure when seeking an amendment. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

Analysis

Plaintiff argues that amendment is necessary and proper because there is good cause for each of the new causes of action, and because deletion of the removed causes of action will streamline the case and avoid unnecessary law and motion practice. Plaintiff notes that Rodriguez holds that pre-owned vehicle owners may still bring claims under the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty and Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act and the California Uniform Commercial Code, and that nothing in Rodriguez eliminated Plaintiff’s rights to bring breach of warranty claims generally or based on violations of laws other than the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

GM opposes the motion, arguing that Plaintiff took too long to bring the motion, and that they should not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s decision not to bring alternative claims in the first instance. GM argues that it would be unduly prejudiced if Plaintiff is allowed to amend the complaint because in the ten months since this case was filed the parties have already conducted discovery focused on the Song-Beverly claims, and that adding new claims will expand the case forcing GM, to spend additional resources on discovery and delay trial or other resolution of the case.

GM additionally makes arguments attacking the viability of the new causes of action. Trial is not yet set and the Court is not convinced that GM would suffer any undue prejudice as a result of Plaintiff being allowed to file an amended complaint. On the other hand, Plaintiff would suffer great prejudice and be unable to try his case on the merits of available claims should the motion be denied. Moreover, the Court notes that challenges to the sufficiency of a pleading are more

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014244: BEALE vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al. 05/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 54

appropriately resolved via demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or other appropriate proceeding. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 citing Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.) Based on the foregoing and the liberal policy in favor of amendments, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint no later than June 9, 2025. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact GM’s counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact GM’s counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.