Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24GDCV00255, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24GDCV00255    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 10/30/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 24GDCV00255
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: HENRIK EDOYAN; EDGAR DALLAKYAN v. BRANDON ALLAN MERCER; and DOES 1-10

[TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT]

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Defendant BRANDON ALLAN MERCER (hereinafter “Defendant”) will move the Court for an Order granting leave to file a Cross-Complaint for Indemnity, Contribution and Declaratory Relief in this action against HENRIK EDOYAN and ROES 1 to 10 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Cross-Defendant”) in this matter.

This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.50, 428.10 and 428.50 on the grounds that the proposed Cross-Complaint arises out of the same transaction and occurrence – the same two-vehicle accident - as that set forth in the Complaint of plaintiffs HENRIK EDOYAN (“Plaintiff Edoyan”) and EDGAR DALLAKYAN (“Plaintiff Dallakyan”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), as a “related cause of action” under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.10(c). Permitting the filing of Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is in the interest of justice under Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, will promote efficient resolution of all claims between the parties, and will avoid forfeiture of such claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50. Moreover, Defendant has acted in good faith in seeking leave to file their proposed Cross-Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of D. Amy Akiyama, and further attempted to obtain a stipulation with Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to filing this Motion, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

This Motion is based upon this Notice, the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declaration of D. Amy Akiyama and exhibits thereto, including the proposed Cross-Complaint attached as Exhibit A, the Court’s records and files in this case, all matters of which the Court may or must take judicial notice, and upon all such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.”

(Mot. p. 1-2.)

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Henrik Edoyan and Edgar Dallakyan, filed a Complaint on 2/13/2024 against Defendant, Brandon Allan Mercer. The Complaint alleges two causes of action – (1) Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence.

Plaintiffs allege that on 11/11/2023, while Edoyan was driving, and Dallakyan was passenger, Defendant Mercer made a left turn wherein Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s vehicles collided.

Defendant, Mercer, filed an Answer on 4/22/2024.

PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS

Moving Party: Defendant, Brandon Allan Mercer
Responding Party: Plaintiff, Henrik Edoyan

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: Reply

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP § 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

LEGAL STANDARD LEAVE TO FILE COMPULSORY CROSS-COMPLAINT
Code of Civil Procedure section 426.10 et seq. sets forth California’s “compulsory cross-complaint" statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10 et seq. [titled “Compulsory Cross-Complaints"].) Therein, Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30 provides, “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.” (Ibid.)  Related cause of action means “a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (CCP § 426.10(c).)

In the event a party fails to file a compulsory cross-complaint concurrently with his or her answer, CCP § 426.50 provides the following available remedies:

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.

(CCP § 426.50)

“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.)

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant seeks leave to file a Cross-Complaint for Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief. Defendant argues that Plaintiff, Endoyan, caused and contributed to the accident at issue in this case because of his excessive speed, traveling in an improper lane, and inattentiveness while driving. Defendant argues that it became apparent during discovery that Plaintiff was negligent and contributed to the cause of the accident.

In Opposition, Plaintiff, Henrik Edoyan, argues that Defendant’s proposed Cross-Complaint should have been filed at the same time as the Answer in April of 2024. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not included any facts in his motion not known to him at the time he filed his Answer in April 2024. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not included any facts that would qualify as an oversight, inadvertence, or a mistake. Plaintiff argues that Defendant acted in bad faith by seeking leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint nearly 7 months after the Answer was filed. Plaintiff argues that when Defendant filed his Answer, he was already under the impression that he believed Plaintiff was partially negligent.

Here, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s Opposition availing. Nothing in CCP § 426.50 requires that the basis for granting this motion has to be because of new facts were discovered not known to Defendant at the time Defendant filed his Answer.

“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.)

Here, the Court does not find that Defendant acted in bad faith just because he waited nearly 7 months to seek leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint after the Answer was filed.

Defendant’s motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.