Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02217/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02217-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441cpl Removal - Contract Product Liability

---

– 1 – 19cv2217

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID HASTINGS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-2217-BAS-MDD

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND

COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 16]

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff David Hastings’ Motion for Leave to 

Amend Complaint. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 16.) Defendants Ford Motor Company and 

Ford of Chula Vista filed an opposition to the Motion, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 19), to 

which Plaintiff replied, (“Reply,” ECF No. 22). The Court finds this Motion suitable 

for determination on the papers and without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). For 

the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint in California State Court asserting claims against 

Ford Motor Company for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, 

violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and fraud by omission. (ECF No. 1-

3.) The complaint also contains a cause of action for negligent repair against Ford 

of Chula Vista. Plaintiff claims he bought a vehicle from Ford which contained 

defects. Plaintiff alleges Ford has not serviced or repaired the vehicle to conform to 

Case 3:19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 19cv2217

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the applicable express warranties. Plaintiff further alleges Ford also will not replace 

the vehicle or provide restitution. Defendants removed the case to this Court. (ECF 

No. 1.) Defendants both answered the complaint. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his 

complaint once as a matter of course within specified time limits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 

party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when 

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

While courts exercise broad discretion in deciding whether to allow 

amendment, they have generally adopted a liberal policy. See United States ex rel. 

Ehmcke Sheet Metal Works v. Wausau Ins. Cos., 755 F. Supp. 906, 908 (E.D. Cal. 

1991) (citing Jordan v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir.), rev'd 

on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982) ). Accordingly, leave is generally granted 

unless the court harbors concerns “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.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962). The non-moving party bears the burden of showing why leave to amend 

should not be granted. Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530–31 

(N.D. Cal. 1989).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to “provide[] clarification to [his] 

supporting factual allegations.” (Mot. at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to 

(1) identify the engine of the Subject Vehicle as a 6.7L engine as 

opposed to a 6.4L engine, (2) cite to the class action lawsuit that was 

attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit 1, which tolled Plaintiff’s 

causes of action and put Defendants on notice of Ford’s defective 

diesel-fueled automobiles equipped with a 6.7L engine for model years 

Case 3:19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 19cv2217

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2011-present, and (3) to correct any further errors stemming from these 

inadvertent errors and/or referring to them.

(Mot. at 3.) In their opposition to the Motion, Defendants argue futility, pointing

out what they see as numerous flaws in Plaintiff’s claims. For example, Defendants 

contend the Song-Beverly claims are futile because Plaintiff’s vehicle was 

purchased outside of California and the statute does not apply to out-of-state 

purchases. (Opp’n at 1.) The problem with Defendants’ arguments is that they do 

not address any flaws in the amendments themselves. Defendants take issue with 

the complaint as it stands now, and their futility argument relates only to allegations 

that have been made since the inception of this case.

The Court must evaluate whether the amendment itself is futile; it would be 

improper to rule on the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint at this time. See Gabrielson 

v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 785 F.2d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1986) (analyzing whether 

“it would be futile to permit amendment of the complaint”); Riley v. Modesto Irr. 

Dist., No. CV F 10-2281 AWI GSA, 2011 WL 1459154, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 

2011) (“[F]utility of amendment is tied to what the pleading party could allege, not 

what it did allege.”). The current Motion only seeks to make a few specific 

amendments to the complaint, none of which Defendants argue are futile. 

Defendants’ arguments are better suited for a motion to dismiss.1

 The Court finds 

leave to amend should be granted in the interests of justice.

/ / /

 1 Defendants also argue that Plaintiff seeks amendment in bad faith because Plaintiff has not 

included the amendments that the parties discussed in meet and confer discussions and because 

Plaintiff “refuses” to acknowledge the out-of-state purchase of the car. (Opp’n at 8.) Plaintiff is 

the master of his own complaint and just because he did not make the amendments that Defendants 

discussed with his counsel does not mean amendment is sought in bad faith. 

Case 3:19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 19cv2217

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 

16.) Plaintiff SHALL file the amended complaint attached to his Motion on or 

before March 13, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4