Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01442, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01442    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Ammari v. Martinez, Case no. 23SMCV01442

Hearing date November 19, 2024

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Plaintiff Ammari sues defendants Jorge L. Martinez, Jesus Enrique and Edin Alex Enamarado for slander and libel arising from a 3/3/23 exchange between the parties in which defendants allegedly accused plaintiff of child abuse and human trafficking and posted a video of the exchange on the internet. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed 4/3/23 and an FAC on 12/4/23. Defendants seek leave to file a cross-complaint. Plaintiff opposes and requests sanctions. Defendant requests sanctions.

Motions for leave to amend pleadings are liberally granted at all stages of the proceedings, up to and including the eve of trial. CCP §§473(a)(1), 576. A court may deny leave to amend if the potential defendant / cross-defendant will suffer prejudice as a result of the amendment. Prejudice may be found where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

Defendants argue plaintiff’s opposition was untimely, so should not be considered. As the opposition was untimely by two court days and defendants were able to file a responsive reply, the court considers plaintiff’s argument.

Defendants assert the cross-complaint arises from the same set of facts and circumstances as the FAC, namely the 3/3/23 exchange between the parties, and is compulsory. Plaintiff argues the motion is untimely, prejudicial and in bad faith.

Plaintiff argues defendants had ample time to bring this motion since filing the answer. Defense counsel Contreras declares the cross-complaint was not previously filed because defendants hoped to settle the matter. Decl. Contreras para. 3.

Plaintiff argues the motion is prejudicial, as it will delay trial, set for 3/10/25 and necessitate additional discovery, but plaintiff does not specify what additional discovery would be required. Defendants assert no discovery has yet occurred, and they will be prejudiced if unable to litigate their claims arising from the 3/3/23 exchange. Decl. Contreras para. 4.

Plaintiff argues the motion is brought in bad faith, noting the lack of a declaration from defendants as well as the results of previous court decisions regarding defendants. A party declaration is required. Plaintiff’s reliance on previous court decisions is unavailing; defendants are entitled to litigate their claims against plaintiff regardless of the rulings in limited TRO hearings. California has a strong public policy favoring the filing of cross-complaints absent prejudice. Defendants’ claims arise from the same 3/3/23 exchange and are unlikely to greatly expand the scope of discovery or length of trial.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendants to file the cross-complaint within 5 court days. There is no basis to sanction either party. The court reminds both sides that sanctions are a harsh remedy only to be imposed sparingly. Neither side comes close to establishing that sanctions are appropriate here.