Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV37468, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling




Case Number: 22STCV37468    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Alvarado vs. Valparaiso Motors, Inc., et. al., Case No. 22STCV37468

 

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

 

Defendant Freeway Funding, Inc. (Freeway Funding) moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff Angelica Alvarado (Plaintiff). The 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).)

            A party who failed to plead a compulsory cross-claim, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

 

Plaintiff’s claims in this action arise from the purchase of a 2017 Nissan Pathfinder from Defendant Valparaiso Motors, Inc. (Comp. ¶ 9.) Freeway Funding is the assignee of the Retail Installment Sales Contract for Plaintiff’s purchase of the vehicle. (Comp. ¶ 4.)

Freeway Funding’s proposed Cross-Complaint alleges that Plaintiff breached the parties’ contract by failing to maintain insurance for the vehicle and by failing to make a monthly payment on the vehicle. (Motion, Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff argues that leave should be denied because Freeway Funding filed its Answer without filing the Cross-Complaint, despite it having knowledge of the facts underlying the cross-claims. However, because the proposed cross-claims are compulsory, leave to amend must be granted absent bad faith. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.) Plaintiff has not presented any basis for denying leave; the purported fact that Freeway Funding delayed filing its cross-claims until after settlement negotiations broke down does not constitute bad faith. Accordingly, the motion is granted.