Judge Bradley S. Phillips, Case Number: 22STCV27553, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Bradley S. Phillips, Case: 22STCV27553, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and "cc" all other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

2. For any motion where no parties submit on the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT ON A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 22STCV27553 Hearing Date: October 14, 2024 Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendant Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (“Defendant”) for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is granted. The Court finds that granting leave is in the interest of justice (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50, subdivision (c)) and in furtherance of justice (Id. § 473, subdivision (a)(1)). There is no trial date, and including the cross-defendants and cross-claims in the action will promote efficiency and prompt allocation of responsibility for Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. There will be no material prejudice to Plaintiffs.

Both parties mistakenly rely on case authority that relates only to motions for leave to file compulsory cross-complaints. Defendant relies exclusively on Silver Organization Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94. The Silver court stated expressly: “We emphasize that our opinion deals solely with the denial of a compulsory cross-complaint, which, if not pleaded within the action initiated by the complaint will result in a forfeiture of the related causes of action. Amendments to add non-compulsory causes of action are governed by section 473.” Id. at 101 n.2 (emphasis in original). Both Gherman v. Colburn (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 544, and Foot’s Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, similarly address only leave to plead a compulsory cross-complaint.

Defendant’s proposed cross-claims for equitable indemnity and equitable contribution are non-compulsory, both because they are not causes of action against the plaintiffs (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30) and because neither cause of action actually accrues until Defendant has suffered actual loss through payment (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 744, 751).

The Court has considered the parties’ respective arguments with respect to “bad faith” as relevant to the determination whether granting leave is in the interest of justice, and the Court concludes that it is.