Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV26025, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26025    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff Rinaldo Alberico filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles, asserting causes of action for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent. Plaintiff alleges that he was fired after reporting numerous instances of other deputies using racial slurs against him.

            On April 25, 2024, the parties attended mediation and reached a settlement for $19,999. (Megrabyan Decl. ¶ 2.) That same day, the mediator sent an email to both parties with the terms of the settlement, and both parties responded confirming the terms. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. 1, 2.) Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement on May 1, 2024. On May 15, 2024, defense counsel circulated a written agreement formalizing the terms reached in mediation and requesting Plaintiff’s signature. (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the email, stating that Plaintiff “wants to be reinstated to the Sheriff Department.”[1] (Id., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Defense counsel responded that Plaintiff did not qualify for reinstatement under Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances Section 17.01 and that reinstatement was not a negotiated settlement term. (Id., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.)

After Plaintiff refused to sign a settlement agreement, Defendant filed a motion to enforce settlement. The Court denied this motion on September 4, 2024, finding that there was no enforceable agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. However, the Court noted that Defendant could file a cross-complaint for breach of the oral contract formed in mediation.  

On September 25, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 permits the filing of a cross-complaint as follows:

“(a) 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.

(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant seeks to file a cross-complaint for breach of contract based on Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the terms of the settlement reached in mediation. “The statutory procedure for enforcing settlement agreements under section 664.6 is not exclusive. Thus, even when the summary procedures of section 664.6 are not available, a party can still seek to enforce a settlement agreement by, among other things, prosecuting an action for breach of contract.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.) Therefore, the Court finds good cause to allow the cross-complaint. There is no indication of bad faith or any prejudice to Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint is GRANTED.

            Trial will be bifurcated, and the cross-complaint will be tried first.