Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00164, Date: 2023-09-21 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: 23CHCV00164    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 08/24/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Guillermo Neunschwander Grupp

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendant Guillermo Neunschwander Grupp leave to file a Cross-Complaint as to Cross-Defendant Amazon.Com, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is GRANTED.  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Guillermo Neunschwander Grupp is ordered to separately file his Cross-Complaint after the hearing by the end of the day on 9/21/23. 

BACKGROUND

On 1/20/23, Plaintiff Jaime Rene Lara Castro filed this action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Guillermo Neunschwander Grupp alleging causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence.

ANALYSIS

CCP 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.

Absent a showing of bad-faith, leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint must be granted.  (See Silver Organizations Ltd. V. Frank (1990) 217 CA3d 94, 98-99.)  Relief to file 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.  (Id.; Foot’s Transfer and Storage Company (1980) 114 CA3d 897, 901-903.) 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s deposition confirmed the existence of an Amazon delivery truck at the location where the incident took place, which Defendant claims blocked his view of the southbound traffic on Balboa Boulevard.  (Nhan Decl. ¶ 3, Exhib. B.)  Based on Plaintiff’s confirmation of this information, Defendant believes that there is sufficient information to warrant a Cross-Complaint against Amazon for indemnity and contribution should Defendant be found liable for the subject incident and Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.  (Id., Exhib. A.)

The Court finds that there is no evidence that Defendant acted in bad faith in failing to file its cross-complaint. 

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.