Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Alsaid v. Sameer, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint filed by Defendant, Gonzalez Legacy, Inc. dba Bridgeport Golf Carts (“Gonzalez Legacy”) is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 428.10(b); 428.50(c).)

The proposed cross-complaint asserts an equitable indemnity claim against non-party Emad Dalati. Defendants may cross-complain against any person from whom they seek equitable indemnity, and defendants need only allege that the harm for which they are being sued is attributable, at least in part, to the cross-defendant. (American Motorcycle Ass’n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 607; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) § 6:529.) “Cross complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.” (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes/All American Develop. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.)

The moving papers sufficiently establish that it would be in the “interest of justice” to grant leave to file the cross-complaint because it would resolve all related issues in the same case and would not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (See City of Hanford v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 580, 587.)

Gonzalez Legacy offers a reasonable excuse for why the cross-complaint was not filed earlier. (Marqué Decl. ¶ 7.) Lastly, there is no indication that the parties will be prejudiced by the filing of the cross-complaint as there is no trial date and no oppositions were filed indicating any prejudice.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Gonzalez Legacy is to separately file the proposed cross-complaint attached as Exhibit B to the Marqué declaration within 5 days.

Moving party to give notice.