Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV08170, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08170    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    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

BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff Ying Tang (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Romic Logistics, LLC, Intermodal Contractors Association of North America, Inc., Ronald P. Perry, Julio Cuevas, and Does 1 to 50 for negligence resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

             Defendants Romic Logistics and Julio Cuevas (“Defendants”) now move for leave to file a cross complaint against co-defendant Ronald P. Perry. No opposition has been filed.

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

Defendants argue that Ronald P. Perry (“Perry”) is alleged by Plaintiff to be one of the drivers involved in the subject multi-vehicle accident. Perry’s deposition has been taken. Defendants assert that during a November 27, 2023 mediation between the parties, Defendants learned of Perry’s new stance regarding his liability. While not disclosing the contents of the confidential mediation, Defendants now seek to protect their interests by filing a cross-complaint against Perry for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. Since it appears the cross-complaint is based on the motor vehicle accident underlying this case, it results out of the same occurrence. Therefore, the Court finds the interests of justice would be served by allowing Defendants to file the cross complaint.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants Romic Logistics and Julio Cuevas’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Defendants are ordered to file and serve their proposed cross-complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.