Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00144, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00144    Hearing Date: November 29, 2023    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 8/10/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alma Reyes and Leticia Gonzales (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)¿ 

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendant leave to file a first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”).

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant to separately file its FAXC within 20 days of this hearing.

Defendant is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiffs allege that on 8/21/21, they were injured when their vehicle “when their vehicle collided with a large metal plate in the roadway” owned and maintained by Defendant. (Compl. p. 4.)

On 1/18/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendant, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Premises Liability; and (2) General Negligence. On 5/8/23, Defendant filed its answer and cross-complaint against cross-defendant Toro Enterprises, Inc. (“Toro”), a corporation who performed road excavation work for Defendant at the subject location. Defendant’s cross-complaint alleges against Toro the following causes of action: (1) Express Indemnity; (2) Implied Indemnity; (3) Equitable Indemnity; (4) Apportionment of Fault; and (5) Declaratory Relief.

On 8/10/23, Defendant filed the instant motion for leave to file its first amended cross-complaint. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

Here, Defendant seeks to amend its cross-complaint to add plaintiff Alma Reyes, the driver of the subject vehicle, as a cross-defendant for equitable indemnity and apportionment of fault. (Def.’s Mot. 3:25–28; Ex. A to Decl. of Matthew M. Haffner.)

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)

Relief to file or amend a compulsory cross-complaint must be liberally granted to avoid forfeiture of causes of action, unless there is a showing that the party seeking to file the cross-complaint has acted in bad faith. (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99; Foot’s Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 901–903.)

Here, Defendant argues that its proposed claims against Reyes are compulsory because they “arise out of the same set of facts as plaintiffs’ complaint.” (Def.’s Mot. 4:28–5:1.) A Traffic Crash Report obtained through discovery opines that Reyes was “following the vehicle ahead of her at an unsafe distance to anticipate hazards” in violation of Vehicle Code section 22107. (Ex. B to Haffner Decl., pp. 8–9.)

The attached proposed FAXC alleges against Reyes the following causes of action: (1) Equitable Indemnity/Apportionment of Fault; (2) Contribution; and (3) Declaratory Relief. (Ex. A to Haffner Decl.) The Court finds that the proposed cross-claims relate to the subject vehicle collision, and notes that Plaintiffs have failed to oppose the instant motion. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a FAXC is granted.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant to separately file its FAXC within 20 days of this hearing.