NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

 

Defendant's Motion for Leave to file a Cross-Complaint is granted.

 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Margarita Rosiak filed this action against Richard Rosiak (Defendant), seeking to quiet title to property located at 9917 Wiley Burke Avenue, Downey, CA 90242.

 

Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 provides, “A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”

A trial court lacks discretion to deny a motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50. Silver Orgs. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98 (Silver Orgs.). “A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Id. at p. 99.

A finding of bad faith must be supported by substantial evidence. Ibid. Substantial evidence is “evidence . . . ‘of ponderable legal significance, . . . reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.’ Ibid. “‘Bad faith is defined as “[t]he opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . ., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.’” Id. at p. 100 (quoting Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 743, 764) (citations omitted).

“[D]elay only may constitute the requisite bad faith to preclude the granting of the request to file a cross-complaint when it appears that a delayed cross-complaint, if allowed, would work a substantial injustice to the opposing party and would prejudice that party's position in some way.” Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 903.

 

ANALYSIS

Defendant seeks leave to file a Cross-Complaint containing six causes of action relating to the subject property. Defendant argues, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that the proposed Cross-Complaint is compulsory. Nor does Plaintiff argue that Defendant failed to file the Cross-Complaint earlier in bad faith. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the issues raised in the Cross-Complaint were previously adjudicated in the family law matter in Nevada, Case No. D-180578580-D. However, in ruling on a motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint, the Court does not examine the pleading’s merits. If Plaintiff believes the Cross-Complaint is subject to collateral estoppel, she may make that argument in a demurrer. See Silver Orgs., supra217 Cal.App.3d at p.102 (noting issue preclusion “might be appropriately raised by demurrer, summary judgment, or other pretrial proceeding after the compulsory cross-complaint has been filed.”).

Accordingly, the Court must grant the motion because there is no evidence that Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to file the cross-complaint earlier.

 

CONCLUSION

Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is granted. Defendant shall serve and file the Cross-Complaint within 10 days of this order.