Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01513, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01513    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Bigfoot Ventures, LTD v. Knighton, Case no. 23SMCV01513

Hearing date November 19, 2024

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Plaintiff Bigfoot Ventures, LTD. sues defendants Knighton, Hargaden, as individual and trustee of the Shamrock Alpha Trust and Waytools, LLC for voidable transfer arising from a defaulted $5.5 million loan from plaintiff to NextEngine, Inc., of which Knighton was shareholder and president. Plaintiff’s FAC was filed 12/15/23. Knighton seeks leave to file a cross-complaint. Plaintiff opposes and requests judicial notice.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of: (1) the complaint in the matter of Bigfoot v. NextEngine, Case No. BC427246 (filed December 3, 2009); (2) judgment against NextEngine in favor of Bigfoot, Case No. BC573303 (entered March 16, 2017); (3) Bigfoot’s motion to amend the judgment (filed August 18, 2018); (4) order of Hon. Holly J. Fuji, granting Bigfoot’s motion to amend (entered February 7, 2020); and (5) declaration of Andrew Spielberger in the matter of Bigfoot v. Knighton, et al. Case No. 19-CV-08164 (C.D. Cal.) (filed August 24, 2023). GRANTED.

Defendant Knighton’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

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.

Defendant moves for leave to file cross-complaint for breach of contract arising from paragraph 9 of the parties’ 2008 secured promissory note. Plaintiff argues defendant’s grounds for cross-complaining are time-barred and defendant’s claim for breach of contract would have accrued no later than 2020. Defendant asserts plaintiff’s 4/6/23 complaint is the alleged breach, so his claims are not time-barred.

Plaintiff argues defendant’s motion is subject to demur, so should be denied. This is unavailing. Whether a cross-complaint will succeed is not the determining factor in deciding whether leave to file will be granted. Plaintiff notes the court is within its discretion to deny leave to amend on such grounds. See Pollard v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park Ass’n. (1936) 15 Cal.App.2d 77, 82. The court chooses not to exercise that discretion. Plaintiff may demurrer, should it wish.

Plaintiff next argues the cross-complaint would be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, so should be denied. Likewise, whether an anti-SLAPP motion might be filed or granted is not a basis to deny a party’s ability to file a cross-complaint.

Trial has not been set, and discovery is open. California has a strong policy of permitting cross-complaints when there is no showing of prejudice. No prejudice has been shown or alleged. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant to file its cross-complaint within 5 days.