Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV30740, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30740    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:  Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, 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.

Please note: The Court is unavailable to hear oral argument on the motion this afternoon. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will be adopted as the order of the Court. If a party requests oral argument, the hearing will be continued to October 4, 2024.

TENTATIVE RULING  

BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs Wayne Davis, Aaron Grim, Amy Higdon, Kenneth Hill, Shalonda Kemp, Kimiesha McGruder, Kaynesha Starks, and Christopher Thomas filed a Complaint against Defendants Aster Gerbermichael (“Defendant”); Sharon Gail Swasey and Marie Ann Neal, dba Leighton Housing; Sharon Gail Swasey, an individual; Khala Swasey; Jason Hinds; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that Defendant is liable for the death of decedents due to a fire on Defendant’s property. (Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint, p. 6.)

Defendant contends that at the time of the fire, she had a homeowner’s insurance policy from State Farm. (Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint, p. 6.) She sought coverage from State Farm, who denied liability under the policy. (Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint, p. 4.)

Defendant now seeks leave to bring this Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant State Farm (“State Farm”), adding State Farm as a party. The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges eight causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Claim, (4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (6) Negligence, (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (8) Declarative Relief.

 
LEGAL STANDARD

A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.)  Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date.  (Code Civ. Proc. §428.50(b).)   

If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).)  Leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith. (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)  Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c).) The court must grant leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint so long as the defendant is acting in good faith.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) 

A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint may file a cross complaint setting forth “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.10(b).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for an order granting leave to file a Cross-Complaint against State Farm on the grounds that the Cross-Complaint is compulsory and was filed “as soon as reasonably practical after Gerbermichael retained counsel.” (Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint, p. 7.)

Therefore, since the cross-complaint arises out of the same occurrence in this action, the Court finds that granting leave to file the cross-complaint would be in the interest of justice. Therefore, the motion for leave is granted.

The Court finds that the Cross-Complaint is compulsory, as it arises from the same injury Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint. Defendant owned an insurance policy from State Farm at the time of the fire and sought coverage from State Farm because of the fire.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint and Add Cross-Complainant is GRANTED. The cross-complaint must be filed and served within 10 days of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.