Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV27461, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27461    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Lupario vs. Management Works Realty, Inc., et. al., Case No. 20STCV27461

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Defendant Management Works Realty (Defendant) moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint for indemnification. The unopposed motion is granted.

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50, subd. (a).) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (b).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).)

Where the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint so long as defendant is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) If the defendant’s cause of action against the plaintiff is related to the subject matter of the complaint, it must be raised by cross-complaint; failure to plead it will bar the defendant from asserting it in any later lawsuit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30; see AL Holding Co. v. O'Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.Ap..4th 1310, 1313-1314.)

The Court has discretion to allow a defendant to file its cross-complaint even if the claims are permissive rather than mandatory crossclaims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).) Where the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint so long as defendant is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) “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, 99.)

Defendant’s proposed Cross-Complaint seeks indemnification for attorney’s fees incurred in this action, against Fisher Property Management, Steven Aptaker, and Laurie Aptaker, individually and as Trustee of the Laurie Aptaker Trust. (Mozer Decl. ¶ 18, Ex. E [42].)

The proposed Cross-Complaint arises out of the same transactions and set of facts as Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. There is no indication of bad faith by Defendant, and the motion is unopposed. Accordingly, the motion for leave is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)  Defendant is ordered to file and serve the cross-complaint within ten (10) days of today’s date.