United States District Court, S.D. California
WILLIAM Q. HAYES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
matters before the Court are 1) the Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint (ECF No. 11); and 2) the Motion to Remand (ECF No.
12) filed by Plaintiffs John Sampson and Leslie Sampson.
30, 2019, Plaintiffs John Sampson and Leslie Sampson
initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant
Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”) and Does 1
through 10 in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1-3). Plaintiffs allege that
Subaru manufactured or distributed a defective Subaru
Outback, failed to repair the vehicle, failed to provide
sufficient service literature or parts to repair facilities,
breached an express warranty, and breached the implied
warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs bring claims against
Subaru for 1) violation of California's Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code §§
1790 et seq.; and 2) violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. §§
2301 et seq. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution,
civil penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and
other relief as the Court may deem proper. On August 30,
2019, Subaru removed the action to this Court based on
federal question jurisdiction over the MMWA claim and
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. (ECF No.
September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed 1) a Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint (ECF No. 11); and 2) a Motion to Remand (ECF
No. 12). On October 18, 2019, Subaru filed Responses in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions. (ECF Nos. 20, 21). On
October 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed Replies. (ECF Nos. 23,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
seek leave to amend the Complaint to 1) dismiss the MMWA
claim with prejudice; and 2) join Kearney Mesa Hyundai Subaru
(“KMHS”) as a defendant.
contends that the Court should allow Plaintiffs to amend the
Complaint to dismiss the MMWA claim with prejudice
“because none of the factors militating against
amendment, such as undue delay, bad faith, futility, or undue
prejudice to Defendant, are present.” (ECF No. 11 at
2). Subaru “does not object to plaintiffs' proposed
dismissal of their Magnuson-Moss claim with prejudice.”
(ECF No. 20 at 2).
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, after
the time for amendment “as a matter of course”
has passed, “a party may amend its pleading only with
the opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). A court “should
freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Id. District courts consider several factors in
deciding whether to grant a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):
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 cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment,
etc. - the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see
Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“Liberality in granting a plaintiff leave to amend is
subject to the qualification that the amendment not cause
undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad faith,
and is not futile . . . . Additionally, the district court
may consider the factor of undue delay . . . . Undue delay by
itself, however, is insufficient to justify denying a motion
to amend.”) (citation omitted). “Not all of the
[Foman] factors merit equal weight . . . . [T]he
consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries
the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v.
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)
(citations omitted). “The party opposing amendment
bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD
Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir.
1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of
the remaining Foman factors, there exists a
presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to
amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.
does not oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend to
dismiss the MMWA claim. There has been no showing that any of
the Foman factors warrant deviating from the
“presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting
leave to amend.” Id. Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to Amend the Complaint to dismiss the MMWA claim
with prejudice is granted.