Casey v. General Motors, LLC

Filing 36

ORDER: The Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32 ) is granted. Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint attached to the Motion (ECF No. 32 -1) within five (5) days of the date of this Order. Signed by District Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/19/2021. (ag)

Case 3:20-cv-00299-WQH-MSB Document 36 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.541 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

REBECCA CASEY, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals,

13
14
15
16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive
Defendants.

17
18

Case No.: 20-cv-299-WQH-MSD

HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Casey. (ECF No. 32).
I.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff Rebecca Casey filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint against Defendants General Motors, LLC (“GM”) and Does 1 through 10. (ECF
No. 14). On September 29, 2020, Defendant GM filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16).
On April 13, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss and
dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with leave to
file a motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 26).

28
1
20-cv-299-WQH-MSD

Case 3:20-cv-00299-WQH-MSB Document 36 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.542 Page 2 of 4

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,
2
20-cv-299-WQH-MSD

Case 3:20-cv-00299-WQH-MSB Document 36 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.543 Page 3 of 4

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
3
20-cv-299-WQH-MSD

Case 3:20-cv-00299-WQH-MSB Document 36 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.544 Page 4 of 4

1

Rule 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

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
20-cv-299-WQH-MSD