Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 23STCV19063, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV19063, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19063 Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 Dept: 55

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

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff View Pointe Leeward, LLC (Plaintiff), filed this unlawful detainer action against Anselmo Sanchez (Defendant).

Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint. Plaintiff did not file 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 cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint. See Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864 (Crocker). A related cause of action is “a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).

“Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court’s discretion.” Crocker, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 864 (citing Orient Handel v. United States Fid. and Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701). In contrast, 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. “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.

“In an unlawful detainer action, a cross-complaint by the tenant is not allowed so long as she remains in possession of the premises.” Medford v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 236, 239 (citing Gonzales v. Gem Properties (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1034; Code Civ. Proc., § 1170). “Once the tenant moves out, she becomes eligible to file a cross-complaint under the provisions of Civil Code section 1952.3.” Ibid. “The court, in its discretion, may continue the trial date where filing or responding to the cross-complaint necessitates such a continuance.” Id. at p. 239. In such cases, the defendant is not obliged to allege in a cross–complaint any related cause of action unless after delivering possession to the lessor the defendant files a cross–complaint, or files an answer or an amended answer, in response to the amended complaint. Civ Code § 1952.3, subd. (a)(2).

ANALYSIS

Defendant seeks leave to file a Cross-Complaint alleging: (1) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (2) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment; (5) Nuisance; (6) Business and Professions Code, Section 17200; (7)Violation of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1942.4 et seq. and (8)Violation of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1942.5 et seq. Additionally, Defendant seeks a continuance of the trial date.

While Plaintiff filed this case as an unlawful detainer action, because Defendant has surrendered possession, she is permitted to file a cross-complaint under Civil Code section 1952.3. However, under Civil Code section 1952.3, subdivision (a)(2), Defendant’s proposed Cross-Complaint is permissive, not compulsory. Because Plaintiff fails to oppose the motion, the Court exercises its discretion to grant Defendant’s motion. See Cal Rules of Court, Rule 8.54 (“failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”).

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is granted. Defendant shall file and serve the Cross-Complaint within one week of this order.