Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV23634, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV23634 Hearing Date: December 9, 2024 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Valencia vs. Guy
F. Atkinson Construction, LLC, et. al., Case No. 23STCV23634
Tentative Ruling
re: Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File
a Cross-Complaint
Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC (Defendant)
moves for an order from the Court granting Defendant leave to file a
cross-complaint in the present action. The motion is unopposed by Carlos
Valencia (Plaintiff). The motion is granted.
Defendant is ordered to file and serve the Cross-Complaint within ten
(10) days of today’s date.
Generally, a party must 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(a).) The
court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint if the failure to plead a cause
of action was the result of oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other
cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) Where the proposed cross-complaint arises
out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to
file the cross-complaint as long as defendant is acting in good faith. (Id.)
Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties
in the same lawsuit and discretion will usually be exercised liberally to
permit amendment of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6
Cal.3d 920, 929.)
A party may obtain leave of court
to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of a lawsuit, and leave
may be granted in the interest of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50;
see also Sidney v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 718.)
Defendant moves for leave to file a compulsory
cross-complaint in the present action. “[I]f 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.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a).) A related cause of action “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.” (Id., §
426.10, subd. (c).) A court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint alleging
related causes of action the defendant failed to initially plead due to
oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other good cause, if it finds
that the defendant acted in good faith. (Id. § 426.50.)
Here, Defendant’s counterclaim arises out of a
release agreement signed by Plaintiff purporting to release Defendant from the
presently brought causes of action. (Labriola Decl. ¶¶ 2–3, Ex. 2.) With
Plaintiff having refused to dismiss the present suit despite the release
agreement, Defendant seeks to bring a counterclaim for breach of the same. (Id.
¶ 12, Ex. 7.) Defendant alerted Plaintiff to this potential counterclaim before
bringing the present motion. (Id. ¶ 10, Ex. 6.)
The Court finds that the release agreement,
and any potential breach thereof, arises out of the same series of transactions
or occurrences as Plaintiff’s causes of action because the agreement purports
to release Defendant from them. Thus, the present cross-complaint is
compulsory. Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant has acted in good
faith attempting to resolve this matter informally and notifying Plaintiff about
this potential counterclaim. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 10.) Accordingly, the Court
grants Defendant leave to file a cross-complaint pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 426.50.