Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV00189, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00189    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 1/15/25

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation 

RESPONDING PARTY: None. 

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation leave to file a cross-complaint against Defendant Brown-Forman Corporation.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged personal injuries that Plaintiff sustained on September 11, 2022, at the Costco warehouse located at 18649 Via Princessa, Santa Clarita, CA 91387. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff Consuelo Nicole Acuna (“Plaintiff” or “Acuna”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Costco Wholesale Membership, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Elias Michael Rahhal (“Rahhal”), Young’s Market Company, LLC (“Young’s Market”), and Does 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) product liability, (2) res ipsa loquitur, (3) negligence, and (4) premises liability. Subsequently, on February 14, 2024, Defendants Costco Wholesale Membership, Costco Wholesale Corporation, and Rahhal filed their joint Answer to the Complaint. Defendant Young’s Market filed its Answer on April 9, 2024. On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff substituted Defendant Brown-Forman Corporation (“Brown-Forman”) in place of Doe 1.

On January 15, 2025, Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint (the “Motion”). Subsequently, it filed a notice of non-opposition on May 9, 2025.

No Opposition or Reply papers have been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides:¿¿ 

¿¿ 

“(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.)¿¿¿ 

“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 amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.¿ This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) (Underlines added.)¿¿ 

The Court of Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial¿court. A 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. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank¿(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99 (Silver Organizations).) “‘Bad faith,’ is defined as ‘[t]he opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake ..., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] ... not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather ... the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; ... it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.” (Id. at 100.)¿¿ 

¿ 

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)¿ A related cause of action is “a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).)¿ Leave must be granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in good faith.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)¿¿ 

A.    Compulsory Cross-Complaint

This action stems from an incident involving a bottle of Herradura Reposado Tequila (the “Product”), which Plaintiff alleges exploded and injured her right forearm while she was shopping at a Costco warehouse on September 11, 2022. (Compl., ¶¶ 9, 14.)

Brown-Forman is the owner and manufacturer of the Product. (Duenas Decl., ¶ 5.) While one of the allegations in the Complaint is product liability, Brown-Forman had not been a named defendant in this action at the time the Motion was filed. (Ibid.)

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation now moves for the Court’s leave to file its Cross-Complaint against Brown-Forman. The proposed Cross-Complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) comparative equitable indemnity, (2) declaratory relief, (3) contribution, and (4) apportionment. (Duenas Decl., Ex. “A.”)

The proposed Cross-Complaint explicitly states that “On or about January 18, 2024, Plaintiff Consuelo Nicole Acuna filed a Complaint against Cross-Defendant, and others, entitled Consuelo Nicole Acuna v. Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., et al., bearing case number 24CHCV00189 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for personal injuries arising out of an incident that occurred on or about September 11, 2022. (‘underlying Complaint’)” (Duenas Decl., Ex. “A,” ¶ 3.) “Cross-Complainant expressly denies that it is responsible, in whole or in part, for any of the injuries and/or damages alleged by Plaintiff…. such damage was primarily and ultimately caused by the acts, breaches, and/or omissions of Cross-Defendant, whereas Cross-Complainant’s acts, if any, were secondary, passive, or derivative in nature…” (Id. ¶ 4.)

 It is evident that the claims asserted in the proposed Cross-Complaint are compulsory because they arise from the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).)

 Therefore, the Court determines that the proposed Cross-Complaint is compulsory. Consequently, Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 governs the instant Motion.

B.     Absent Bad Faith from the Moving Party

Here, Costco Wholesale Corporation argues that it has acted reasonably, diligently and in good faith. (Mot. at p. 3.) Specifically, it explains that Costco Wholesale Corporation reasonably anticipated that Plaintiff would name and serve Brown-Forman and that Brown-Forman would thereafter appear and participate in this action. Based on that reasonable expectation, Costco Wholesale Corporation made a strategic and good faith decision not to file a cross-complaint at the time it filed its answer to the Complaint, as any such claims would more appropriately be asserted once Brown-Forman became a party. (Mot. at p. 4; Duenas Decl., ¶ 6.) However, by the time of filing of the Motion, Brown-Forman had not been named or served in this matter. (Duenas Decl., ¶ 5.)

Costco Wholesale Corporation further asserts that granting leave will not result in prejudice to any parties. Discovery remains in its early stages, and no depositions have been completed. (Mot. at p. 4.) The trial date is scheduled for January 26, 2026 – over a year from the date this Motion was filed. (Duenas Decl., ¶ 9.) The absence of any opposition to this Motion further supports the conclusion that no party will be prejudiced by the requested amendment.

In contrast, Costco Wholesale Corporation contends that denying leave will cause undue prejudice to it. Specifically, it would be forced to initiate a new and separate action against Brown-Forman based on the same core facts and legal issues being litigated in this case. Such duplicative litigation would undermine judicial economy and risk inconsistent outcomes. (Mot. at p. 4.)

Having reviewed the moving papers and supporting declarations, the Court is satisfied that Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion is made in good faith and is not motivated by bad faith, undue delay, or dilatory tactics. There is no evidence suggesting the motion was filed with a “dishonest purpose,” or with “a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.” (See Silver Organizations, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at 98-99.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation is ordered to file its Cross-Complaint within 15 days of the hearing, and to submit proof of service within the same 15-day period.

Moving party to provide notice of this order.