Does a rule requiring substitution of a new class representative after a ruling that the named plaintiff is inadequate be inconsistent with the general principle that a trial court has discretion in deciding whether to permit an amended complaint?

An absolute rule requiring substitution of a new class representative after a ruling that the named plaintiff is inadequate would be inconsistent with the general principle that a trial court has discretion in deciding whether to permit an amended complaint. (See Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 ( Record ) [trial court " has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading [citations], [and] as a matter of policy the ruling of the trial court in such matters will be upheld unless a manifest or gross abuse of discretion is shown "], quoting Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135136, 125 Cal.Rptr. 59.)