Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises out of a motor vehicle v. motorcycle accident.  Plaintiffs Hamaz Aouad and Akram Dahba allege Defendant Christopher Roundtree negligently and carelessly caused the collision.  Plaintiffs claim they were lawfully traveling southbound on National Blvd., when Defendant made an “unprotected left turn in from of the Plaintiffs and cut them off.”   

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.  Defendant seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Aouad for negligence, indemnification and declaratory relief.  Defendant claims the facts giving rise to the cross-complaint where only recently uncovered during Plaintiffs’ depositions.  Defendant argues that the cross-complaint is compulsory because it related to the same accident that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ complaint.   There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code Civ. Proc. §428.50 states, “(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.”¿ 

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).)¿ Failure to plead a compulsory cross-claim will bar defendant from asserting it in any later lawsuit.  (AL Holding Co. v. O’Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313-1314.) 

The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint “if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)  There is a split of authority as to whether courts have any discretion to deny a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-claim.  One view is that the requirement of “good faith” gives courts a “modicum of discretion” but the law strongly favors granting leave.  (Sidney v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 718; Gherman¿v.¿Colburn¿(1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 544, 559)  The other view is that courts have no discretion to deny absent findings of bad faith based on substantial evidence.  (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.)    

DISCUSSION 

 Defendant argues that his cross-complaint is compulsory as it is related to Plaintiffs’ complaint.  The Court agrees.  The cross-complaint involves the same accident that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ complaint.   

Because Defendant’s cross-claims are compulsory, the Court is required to grant leave in the absence of bad faith.  There is no evidence of bad faith.  Defendant claims he did not unreasonably delay in seeking leave as he filed his motion shortly after taking the depositions of Plaintiffs.  While Defendant has not sufficiently explained what facts in the depositions support his cross-complaint nor that these facts were not known before the depositions, this alone cannot create the “substantial evidence of bad faith” required to deny leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint.  Plaintiffs also have not argued that there is bad faith.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint.     

DATED:  October 21, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court