Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Johnson v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.", Date: 2023-06-14 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Defendant Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC (Doe 13) moves for leave to file a cross-complaint. For the following reasons, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.

The FAC alleges that on 10/17/2019, Plaintiff was injured when he “tripped on what looked like a post protruding about six inches off the ground.” (FAC at Prem.L-1.) Defendant Sunstate (Doe 13) contends Plaintiff tripped on a carpet pole attached to a forklift that was protruding approximately six inches above the ground. (Mot. at 3:7-8.)

On 09/09/2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to identify Defendant Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC (Doe 13). Defendant Sunstate (Doe 13) appeared in the action on 10/24/2022, filing an answer to the original complaint. (ROA 93.)

About five months later, on 03/29/2023, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Sunstate Equipment Co. (Doe 13) filed the instant motion. The proposed cross-complaint seeks indemnity from Cal Theaming, Inc. (Doe 12), who had rented from Sunstate (Doe 13) the forklift and carpet pole involved in the incident. (See Marcott Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. B.)

There are two types of cross-complaints: compulsory cross-complaints and permissive cross-complaints. A compulsory cross-complaint is a cross-complaint that is asserted against the plaintiff and related to the subject matter of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30.) A cross-complaint is “related” to the complaint if it arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10(c).) All other cross-complaints are permissive cross-complaints.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 426.50 provides that: “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.”

A liberal construction is given to the application of the compulsory cross-complaint statute. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Bao Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 967.) “The test requires not an absolute identity of factual backgrounds for the two claims, but only a logical relationship between them”. The key question is “are any factual or legal issues relevant to both claims?” The goal is to avoid duplication of time and effort that comes from separate suits on the same events. (Currie Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Bowen (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 774, 777.) Claims that are only loosely related in that they involve some of the same parties and the same matter, directly or indirectly, are not logically related if the trial of the claims does not involve a duplication of time and effort due to the fact that there are factual and legal issues that are relevant to both claims. (Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civ. Proceedings-Before Trial (2019) § 12.195 [citing ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 69, 84].)

In fact, cross-complaints for equitable indemnity are virtually always transactionally related to the complaint that has been filed in the main action. (Time for Living Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38-39.) This is because “[a]n indemnity claim effectively seeks to apportion among the parties to the indemnity action the precise liability claimed by the plaintiff in the main action; therefore the indemnity claim of necessity arises out of the same occurrences or series of occurrences as asserted by the plaintiff.” (Id. at p. 39.)

Here, the cross-complaint is compulsory. The court finds Defendant Sunstate (Doe 13) to have acted in good faith, filing this motion less than six months after first appearing in this action.

No later than 06/21/2023, Defendant Sunstate (Doe 13) shall file and serve the proposed cross-complaint, attached as Exhibit D to the Marcott Declaration.

Moving party to give notice.