To vs. Tu

seller a latent defect within that time period.” (Id. at p. 1310.)

Plaintiff alleges he purchased the vehicle on 5/18/19 and defects were present at the time of the sale. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10, 43.) Plaintiff further alleges he first presented the vehicle for repairs in March 2022. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

To the extent Plaintiff alleges a latent defect existed within the one-year period, Plaintiff’s claim is not barred based on a failure to report the defect within one year. At the latest, however, Plaintiff would have been required to file this action four years after the one-year implied warranty period expired on 5/18/20, or 5/18/24.

As Plaintiff filed this action more than four years later on 1/24/25, his claim is time-barred.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a red-lined and clean copy of the amended complaint.

Kia to give notice.

5 Matthew P. Motion for Leave to Intervene Wade, in his Non-party AZGuard Insurance Company’s unopposed capacity as Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED. TRUSTEE of the ML Wade AZGuard failed to timely serve notice of its motion. (Code Family Trust Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) under the provisions of a Clerk to give notice. trust agreement dated September 12, 2013 vs. Scott English Plumbing Inc. 30-2024- 01448700-CU- BC-CJC 6 Delta Group, Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction Inc. vs. Jobran Off calendar at moving party’s request. 30-2026- 01550459-CU- NP-CJC 7 To vs. Tu Demurrer and Motion to Strike to Amended Cross- Complaint

30-2023- Cross-Defendants Hoang Huy Tu and The Tu Firm, APLC’s 01347925-CU- (collectively, “Tu Defendants”) motion to strike the First PN-CJC Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) of Adore Escrow, Inc. (“Adore”) is GRANTED.

“Following an order sustaining a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend, the plaintiff may amend his or her complaint only as authorized by the court’s order.” (Harris v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) “The plaintiff may not amend the complaint to add a new cause of action without having obtained permission to do so, unless the new cause of action is within the scope of the order granting leave to amend.” (Ibid.)

The Court’s ruling on the prior demurrer did not give Adore leave to add new causes of action.