Uyeno v. General Motors, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of warranty, fraud, and statutory violations in a car lease dispute. The court granted the motion to dismiss the fraud claims without prejudice and with leave to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Dismiss granted with leave to amend“Considering the above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for granting leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2). It noted that the defendant did not argue prejudice and that the plaintiff had not previously amended. The court found that the plaintiff's proposed factual allegations (specifically regarding GM's knowledge of battery fires and non-disclosure) were sufficient to suggest that an amended complaint could potentially state a valid claim, thus overcoming the presumption against futility. The decision to reserve the specific legal issue of the transactional relationship for later briefing is procedurally appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for granting leave to amend and applies them to the facts presented. It properly notes the absence of a prejudice argument by the defendant and the plaintiff's specific proposal for new factual allegations. The court's decision to grant leave to amend rather than dismiss with prejudice is consistent with the liberal policy of Rule 15(a)(2) and Ninth Circuit precedent. The reservation of the legal issue regarding the transactional relationship for later briefing is a reasonable procedural step.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN UYENO, Case No. 3:23-CV-1555-L-JLB 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO vs. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 [ECF NO. 8] 15 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Mot. [ECF No. 8]) filed by 19 Defendant General Motors (“GM”) in this action asserting California state law claims 20 for breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of the Song Beverly Act and California 21 Business and Professions Code § 17200 in connection with a car lease. The Court has 22 subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). [See ECF No. 1.] 23 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s fraud claims must be dismissed for failure to 24 plead with particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). (Mot. at 25 3-4). Plaintiff does not oppose the substance of Defendant’s Motion but seeks leave to 26 amend the Complaint to assert additional factual allegations in support of his fraud 27 claims. (Oppo at 4-5 [ECF No. 9.]) In its Reply, GM opposes Plaintiff’s request 28 arguing leave to amend would be futile. ([ECF No. 11.]) 1 Rule 15 provides that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 2 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” 3 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 99th Cir. 2003). In 4 deciding whether to grant leave to amend, the Court should consider the following: 5 In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 6 cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to 7 the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely 8 given.” 9 10 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 11 Not all of the factors merit equal weight. [I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight. ... 12 Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman 13 factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. 14 15 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 16 Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint, and GM does not contend 17 that it would be prejudiced if leave to amend were granted. The only argument 18 advanced for denying leave to amend is that amendment would be futile as to the 19 fraud claims. Accordingly, GM must overcome the presumption favoring leave to 20 amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “[L]eave to amend should be denied 21 as futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings 22 that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Barahona v. Union Pac. 23 R.R, Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018). A proposed amendment is not futile if 24 it is likely to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Sonoma County Assoc. of 25 Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1118 (9th Cir. 2013); see also 26 Krainski v. Nevada. 616 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 27 556 U.S. 662 (2009).) 28 1 Dismissal with leave to amend is warranted here because Plaintiff has not yet 2 || amended his complaint and has shown that amendment may cure pleading 3 || deficiencies by pleading the how, when, where, to whom and by what means the 4 |) alleged fraud occurred in an amended complaint, including that GM knew of battery 5 || fires in electric vehicles over one year prior to Plaintiffs lease and did not disclose the 6 || risk of fire to Plaintiff. (See Oppo at 2.) Although the parties disagree whether 7 || Plaintiff can adequately allege the requisite transactional relationship with GM to state 8 || a fraud claim based on non-disclosure, this issue, if still relevant after amendment, is 9 || reserved for further briefing at that time. 10 Considering the above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without 11 |] prejudice and with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended 12 || complaint, he must do so no later than August 26, 2024. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 1S Dated: August 14, 2024 16 17 H . James Lorenz ig United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28