Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV05007, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05007    Hearing Date: September 16, 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, 2023, Plaintiff Vicente Cruz Garcia (“Garcia”) filed a complaint in the instant case against Defendant Shannon Kinnard (“Defendant”) for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 23, 2022 on the 10 freeway, westbound, near Crenshaw Boulevard.

On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff Humberto Cruz Gallardo filed a complaint in Gallardo v. Kinnard (case number 23STCV11815), against Defendant based on a motor vehicle accident on June 23, 2022.

The two actions are now consolidated. (Min. Order, 8/2/24.)

Defendant now moves to for leave to file a cross-complaint against Humberto Cruz Gallardo (“Gallardo”) and Roes 1 to 20. 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

Here, Defendant asserts that Garcia was the passenger of the vehicle Gallardo was driving when the incident took place. Defendant was the driver of the other vehicle in the accident. The proposed cross-complaint alleges indemnity and contribution. Since it appears the cross complaint is based on the motor vehicle accident underlying this case, it results out of the same occurrence.

Additionally, Defendant’s counsel asserts the cross-complaint was not filed with Defendant’s answer because she was hoping for a quick and early resolution of this matter. (Cavanna Decl. ¶ 3.) No opposition has been filed.

Therefore, the motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Shannon Kinnard’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Defendant is ordered to file and serve her 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.