Casey v. General Motors, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which sought to drop fraud and CLRA claims and add Song-Beverly Act and UCL claims. The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant failed to show prejudice or futility, and ordered the plaintiff to file the amended complaint within five days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint granted“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is granted.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Rule 15(a) standard, which presumes leave to amend should be granted absent a strong showing of prejudice or futility. The court noted that GM did not make a strong showing of prejudice and that challenges to the merits of the proposed amendment are generally deferred until after the amendment is filed. This follows the Ninth Circuit precedent cited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for leave to amend under Rule 15(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent. It properly applies the presumption in favor of amendment and correctly notes that the defendant failed to meet its burden of showing prejudice. It also correctly applies the principle that merits challenges to a proposed amendment are generally deferred until after the amendment is filed, citing appropriate authority. The reasoning directly addresses the arguments raised by the parties and applies the cited law correctly.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA CASEY, individually, Case No.: 20-cv-299-WQH-MSD and on behalf of a class of similarly 12 situated individuals, ORDER 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and 16 DOES 1-10, inclusive 17 Defendants. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 20 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Casey. (ECF No. 32). 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff Rebecca Casey filed a First Amended Class Action 23 Complaint against Defendants General Motors, LLC (“GM”) and Does 1 through 10. (ECF 24 No. 14). On September 29, 2020, Defendant GM filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16). 25 On April 13, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss and 26 dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with leave to 27 file a motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 26). 28 1 On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 2 Complaint. (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to eliminate the claims 3 for fraud and for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). Plaintiff seeks 4 to assert new factual allegations and new causes of action for violations of the Song- 5 Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1791 (“Song-Beverly Act”), and 6 California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”). 7 Plaintiff contends that the proposed amendments resolve the issues identified by the Court 8 in the Order granting the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff contends that GM would not be 9 prejudiced by amendment because the new claims arise from the same facts pled in the 10 First Amended Class Action Complaint. 11 On June 7, 2021, GM filed an Opposition to the Motion for Leave to File Second 12 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 35). GM contends that amendment would be futile because 13 the new claims are subject to dismissal. GM contends that the new claims are not based on 14 newly discovered facts, and the proposed amendments fail to address the deficiencies 15 identified by the Court in the Order granting the Motion to Dismiss. 16 On June 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff contends that 17 amendment is not futile and that GM’s assertion that the proposed amended complaint fails 18 to state a claim is premature. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be 21 freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied 22 with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 23 Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 24 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 25 consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “undue delay, bad faith or 26 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 27 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 28 allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 1 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it 3 is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 4 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 5 showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists 7 a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 8 316 F.3d at 1052. 9 III. RULING OF THE COURT 10 In the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff deletes the claims for fraud and for 11 violation of the CLRA. Plaintiff adds new factual allegations and new claims for violations 12 of the Song-Beverly Act and the UCL, arising from the alleged Fuse Block Defect in GM 13 Class Vehicles. “[T]he sufficiency of an amended pleading ordinarily will not be 14 considered on a motion for leave to amend.” Breier v. N. Cal. Bowling Proprietors’ Ass’n, 15 316 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1963); see Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 16 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Denial of leave to amend on [futility] ground[s] is rare.”). “If the 17 underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of 18 relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Foman, 371 19 U.S. at 182. The Court will defer consideration of the challenges to the merits of the 20 proposed amended complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See Netbula, 212 21 F.R.D. at 539 (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a 22 proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading 23 is filed.”); Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-4708 VRW, 2006 U.S. 24 Dist. LEXIS 82148, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (Defendant’s challenges to the merits 25 of a proposed amended pleading “should be addressed in a motion to dismiss or for 26 summary judgment, not in an opposition to the present motion for leave to amend.”). GM 27 has not made “a strong showing” that it would be prejudiced by the addition of the new 28 claims or that the remaining Foman factors warrant deviating from the “presumption under 1 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 2 (emphasis omitted). 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 4 Complaint (ECF No. 32) is granted. Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint 5 || attached to the Motion (ECF No. 32-1) within five (5) days of the date of this Order. 6 || Dated: July 19, 2021 itt Zz. Ma 7 Hon. William Q. Hayes g United States District Court 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28