Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 24STCV17910, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV17910, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17910 Hearing Date: April 29, 2025 Dept: 55

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

Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Anthony Modica, Paola Carcamo Cotero, and Steven Nydell (Plaintiffs) filed this action against Highgate Hotel Natalie Calderon (Defendants), alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and various wage and hour claims.

Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint against Modica. Modica filed an Opposition.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court rules on Modica’s evidentiary objections as follows:

1. Granted. Lacks Foundation/No Personal Knowledge See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, subd. (a) and 800.

2. Granted. Lacks Foundation/No Personal Knowledge See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, subd. (a) and 800.

3. 3. Granted. Lacks Foundation/No Personal Knowledge See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, subd. (a) and 800.

4. Granted. Lacks Foundation/No Personal Knowledge See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, subd. (a) and 800.

5. Granted. Lacks Foundation/No Personal Knowledge See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702, subd. (a) and 800.

6. Granted. Improper Legal Opinion. See Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639 (“affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate facts’”).

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.

ANALYSIS

The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges that Modica illegally recorded his conversations with Defendants. The sole cause of action is (1) Unlawful Recording of Confidential Communication pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 631, 632, and 637.2.

Modica argues that the motion is made in bad faith because the accompanying declaration of counsel contains inadmissible evidence, “which makes clear that Defendants lack a good faith basis for filing this cross-claim against Modica.” Opp. at p. 3:22-23. Modica further argues that the proposed Cross-Complaint improperly requests attorney’s fees. Opp. at p. 3:24-25. Both of these arguments speak to the underlying content of the proposed Cross-Complaint, but fail to show any bad faith by not cross-claiming before or at the time of answering the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants acted in good faith.

CONCLUSION

Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is granted. Within 10 days of this order, Defendants shall file and serve the Cross-Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of David J. Fishman.

Website by Triangulus