Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 23STCV27920, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV27920, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27920 Hearing Date: October 22, 2024 Dept: 74

Opendoor Property Trust I v. Vickers et al.

Defendant Fred Wendall Vickers’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Opendoor Property Trust I (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Fred Wendell Vickers, as a trustee (Vickers), Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A., Western Progressive, LLC, Newrez C/O PHH Mortgage Services, and Does 1-100 (collectively Defendants). Plaintiff alleged seven causes of action, including: (1) Quiet Title; (2) Declaratory Relief/Injunctive Relief; (3) Ejectment; (4) Declaratory Relief (Cancellation of Instrument); (5) Restitution/Unjust Enrichment; (6) Declaratory Relief (Foreclosure of Equitable Lien); and (7) Declaratory Relief (Imposition and Foreclose of Equitable Lien).

Vickers filed an Answer on January 31, 2024. Vickers now seeks leave to file a Cross-Complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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(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(b).)

“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to … file a cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50; First Nat'l Bank v. Russell (9th Cir. 1996) 76 F.3d 242, 245.) The court shall grant leave to file the cross-complaint if the prospective cross-complainant filed his motion in good faith, and if the other statutory precepts have been satisfied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50; Silver Orgs. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99 (“motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result”).)

DISCUSSION

Vickers requests leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff with thirteen causes of action. Vickers failed to timely file the cross-complaint because of inadequate legal advice. Plaintiff does not contend Vickers is filing his motion in bad faith. Instead, Plaintiff asks the court review the merits of each claim in what amounts to an informal demurrer. Because the court finds Vicker’s motion is in good faith, the Court declines at this time to assess the merits of the Cross-Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)

CONCLUSION

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

Vicker shall give notice.

/////////////////////////////////////////

Defendant Fred Wendall Vickers’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer.

BACKGROUND

Vickers filed an Answer on January 31, 2024. Vickers now seeks leave to Amend the Answer.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿ CCP §473(a)(1) states:

“The court may . . ., in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97.) Under California Rule of Court 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located. CRC 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

DISCUSSION

Vickers’s motion is accompanied by a copy of the proposed amended answer, an identification of the proposed changes, and where they are located. Vickers also included a declaration stating the amendment’s effect and why it is necessary. Vickers seeks to add 27 Affirmative Defenses and amend his admission and denial of allegations. He alleges that the changes are necessary because his original Answer’s failure to assert affirmative defenses and erroneous admission of allegations was due to “age-related cognitive limitations and lack of familiarity with legal proceedings” as well as improper legal advice from a third-party.

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that (1) Vickers has always been self-represented and is therefore restricted by the rules of procedure of those qualified to practice law; (2) amendment will prejudice the Plaintiff; and (3) the proposed twenty-seven affirmative defenses fail to state sufficient facts. Plaintiff alleges that it has begun discovery based on Vicker’s original Answer and would need to expand its discovery to address Vicker’s proposed changes. Trial is one year away in October 2025. Discovery has not closed.

CONCLUSION

The court grants Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the answer.

Defendant shall give notice.