Department 58

Hearing Date: September 16, 2024

Case Name: Jeremy Lundblad v. Game 1, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 24STCV05438

Motion: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Game, 1 LLC and Basil Iwanyk

Responding Party: N/A - Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: GRANT

Background

On March 4, 2024, Jeremy Lundblad (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint containing ten causes of action against his former employer Game 1, LLC (Game 1), and the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the company, Basil Iwanyk (Iwanyk, collectively Defendants).

In February of 2020, Plaintiff was hired by Game 1 as Vice President of Development. (Compl., ¶3.) The agreed upon salary was $200,000.00, which was increased in October of 2021 to $225,000.00. (Compl., ¶¶3-4.) An employment agreement (Employment Agreement) was executed on May 1, 2022 for a term of three years. (Compl., ¶5.) However, on November 3, 2022, Defendants ceased to pay Plaintiff money earned, and did not resume payment until January 2023, with no retroactive pay. (Compl., ¶¶10-13.) Failed payments occurred again in March 2023, April 2023, and May 2023. (Compl., ¶¶14, 15, & 17.) After notifying Defendants they were in breach of the terms of the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff was advised by both Mark Peterson (Peterson) the Chief of Staff and Ben Bitonti the Chief Creative Officer to seek other work to help alleviate the financial pressure on Game 1. (Compl., ¶22.) On December 1, 2023, Peterson called Plaintiff to tell him Defendants learned Plaintiff was working for another company at the same time as Game 1. Plaintiff was then given a notice of termination on December 12, 2023 without being paid at least $229,167.00 in unpaid wages. (Compl., ¶¶34-35.) Plaintiff then filed suit.

The motion now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint (the Motion). The Motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Legal Standard

A cross-complaint may be filed by anyone against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.) The cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the Court has set a date for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(b).) If the proposed cross-complaint is permissive, leave of court may be granted "in the interest of justice" at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50 (c).) If defendant's cause of action against plaintiff is related to the subject matter of the complaint, it must be raised by cross-complaint and is therefore compulsory; failure to plead it will bar defendant from asserting it in any later lawsuit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30.)

Analysis

Upon moving for leave to file a cross-complaint, Defendants argue their cross-complaint is compulsory because it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the cause of action Plaintiff alleges in their Complaint. The Court agrees.

Concurrently filed with their Motion, Defendants attach the Declaration of Daniel Kitzes (Kitzes Decl.) which contains the proposed Cross-Complaint. The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) breach of duty of loyalty and (2) breach of contract. The causes of action in the proposed Cross-Complaint and allegations therein stem from the same employment relationship and Employment Agreement Plaintiff alleges in their initial Complaint. Failure by Defendants to plead their own allegations now bars their ability to do so in the future. Therefore, the Cross-Complaint is compulsory, and leave shall be permitted in order to file it.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint