Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV37565, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37565    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 74

Safer Trucking, Inc. v. System Transport, Inc., et al.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [“All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days […] before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a contractual dispute.

            On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff Safer Trucking, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant System Transport, Inc. (Defendant) and Co-Defendant Don Juan Trucking, Inc. (Co-Defendant). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) quantum meruit; (4) negligence; (5) implied indemnity; (6) equitable indemnity; and (7) declaratory relief.

            On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

DISCUSSION 

            Defendant seeks leave to file a cross-complaint that, in part, alleges breach of contract against Plaintiff. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, subdivision (a), a defendant may file a cross-complaint alleging any cause of action he has against the plaintiff. In addition, Defendant’s proposed cross-complaint alleges negligence against Co-Defendant. A defendant can cross-complain against a co-defendant if the cause of action asserted arises out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10, subdivision (b).) Here, Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Co-Defendant negligently transported a load on July 15, 2021. (Complaint, ¶ 34.) Defendant’s cross-claim for negligence against Co-Defendant is based on the same facts. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 27.) Thus, Defendant has provided grounds for the court to grant its motion. Although Defendant has waited over a year to pursue this motion, the court must grant leave to file a cross-complaint if Defendant has acted in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50; see Silver Organization Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.) Here, Defendant’s delay did not result from bad faith. Rather, Defendant attributes the delay to its counsel’s and corporate officer’s respective health issues. (Goldstein Decl., ¶¶ 4-14.)

CONCLUSION

The court grants Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

Defendant shall give notice.