Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV22089, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22089    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant Courtney Tight (Defendant) moves the Court for an order granting leave to file a cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) against Plaintiff Grigor Karakhanyan (Plaintiff).

On June 11, 2021, Plaintiffs Karakhanyan and Vardui Grigoryan filed a Complaint against Defendant, for negligence related a motor vehicle incident.

On January 13, 2022, Defendant filed an answer but did not file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

On October 3, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity, apportionment of fault/ contribution and declaratory relief against Plaintiff Karakhanyan. Plaintiff and proposed Cross-Defendant opposes the motion.

Trial is set for January 25, 2024.

ANALYSIS

          Code of Civil Procedure § 426.30(a) provides, as follows:  “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 of Civil Procedure § 428.50 provides:

“(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.

(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

            “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 (emphasis added.).)

            The Court of Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. 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. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake, or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.) “‘‘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.  [Citation.]’  [Citations.]’  [Citation.]”  (Ibid. at 100.)

A cross-complaint is compulsory if it is transactionally related to the subject matter of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10.)  “To be considered a compulsory cross-complaint, a related cause of action must have existed at the time of the service of [the] answer to [the] complaint.”  (Crocker National Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)  The late filing of a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint “absent some evidence of bad faith is insufficient evidence to support denial of the motion.”  (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at 101.)  “Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court’s discretion.”  (Crocker, 221 Cal.App.3d at 864.)

Defendant asserts that co-plaintiff Grigoryan was recently deposed and testified that her father was not operating his motor vehicle with due care at the time of the subject accident. (Rubin Dec. ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant delayed in seeking leave to file a cross-complaint, the request is made in bad faith, and will prejudice Plaintiffs.

            As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s proposed Cross-Complaint is a compulsory cross-complaint because it arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or services of transactions or occurrences” as the cause of action in Plaintiff’s cross-complaint. 

            Here, Defendant seeks leave to file a Cross-Complaint over 21 months after she filed her answer. Although Defendant’s delay in filing the cross-complaint is attributed to new information, Code of Civil Procedure § 426.50 does not allow the denial of a motion based on these grounds. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 101). The delay in seeking leave to file the Cross-Complaint does not suggest fraud, deception, or a sinister motive. Plaintiff submits no evidence of bad faith. As such, there is no substantial evidence of Defendant’s bad faith.

Defendant argues that the granting of the instant motion will not interfere with the trial date or prejudice the action. Plaintiff argues without specificity that Plaintiff will need to engage in further discovery, depositions, and requiring them to prepare their case against a cross-complaint “this close to trial would severely prejudice Plaintiffs.” (Opposition at p. 2.) Defendant responds that she would not oppose a reasonable request for a short continuance of the trial date. (Reply at p. 1.) Accordingly, the Court finds there has not been a showing that the filing of the Cross-Complaint will result in prejudice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint against Karakhanyan.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve the proposed cross-complaint within ten (10) days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice and file a proof of service of such.