Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV04246, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04246    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Ford, et al. v. Essex Fountain Park Apartments, Case No. 23SMCV04246

Hearing date January 25, 2024

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

Plaintiff Ford alleges the property rented from defendants is infested with mold. Defendant Essex Fountain Park Apartments, L.P., erroneously sued as Essex Fountain Park Apartments, seeks leave to file a cross-complaint for intentional interference with contractual relations based on plaintiff’s alleged prevention of improvements and repairs on the property, resulting in the termination of plaintiff’s section 8 housing payments. Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion.

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 must be granted absent bad faith. Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.

Defendant seeks leave to file a cross-complaint, arguing inadvertence and oversight when filing the answer on October 31, 2023. Defendant contends that no prejudice will result in permitting leave to file a cross-complaint because the case is only a few months old with barely any discovery having been conducted. Defendant argues granting leave is be in the interest of judicial economy.

The case is only a few months old; no trial date has been set. Additionally, plaintiff has not opposed, and there is no prejudice. GRANTED. Defendants to file the proposed cross-complaint within 10 days.