Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV03378, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03378    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Rite Aid v. Bryan, Case no. 24SMCV03378

Hearing date May 6, 2025

Defendants Bryan and Kang’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Plaintiffs Rite Aid Corporation and Pina sue defendants Bryan and Kang for subrogation. Pina, a Rite Aid employee in the course and scope of employment, was injured in a multi-vehicle collision. Defendant Kang rear-ended third party Uche, who rear-ended defendant Bryan, who struck Pina; Pina sustained injuries and received workers compensation benefits. Moving defendants seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Rite Aid, Pina and Uche, asserting newly discovered facts support claims for indemnification and comparative fault. Rite Aid opposes.

Permission to file a cross-complaint rests is discretionary with the trial court. Orient Handel v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701. A defendant may cross-complain against a third party if the cause of action asserted arises out of the same occurrence as in the complaint. Code Civ. Pro. §428.10. Per Code of Civil Procedure §428.50(c), a cross-complaint may be filed at any time "in the interests of justice.” 

Moving defendants assert new facts support claims for indemnification, apportionment of fault, comparative fault and declaratory relief against Rite Aid, Pina and Uche but do not specify the facts. Collins para. 11. Defendants offer the proposed cross-complaint (Collins, exh. 2).

Rite Aid argues the proposed cross-complaint is redundant, as moving defendants previously asserted affirmative defenses for comparative negligence, assumption of risk, and failure to mitigate. See Decl. Collins exh. 1. Defendants are entitled to raise affirmative defenses without sacrificing the ability to cross-complain. Further, the cross-complaint prays for total indemnity, judicial determination that defendants were not at fault and that plaintiffs are wholly liable, and for judgment from plaintiffs. The cross-complaint seeks relief different from that available when succeeding on an affirmative defense and names a new party, Uche.

Rite Aid argues the proposed cross-complaint is untimely. Defendants answered 12/2/24 and argue they had sufficient information to plead the affirmative defenses, but not enough to justify a cross-complaint when the answer was filed. Decl. Collins paras. 11-12. Defendants argue subsequent investigation provided evidence to support a cross-complaint. Decl. Collins para. 12. California courts have held leave to file cross-complaints should be granted at any time, absent bad faith. See Silver Organizations Limited v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94.

Rite Aid cites Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746, arguing unwarranted delay demonstrates bad faith. Huff is not analogous; the movant in Huff sought leave to file amend the complaint three days before a motion for summary judgment. There are no analogous time issues here, nor did moving defendants significantly delay. There is no bad faith.

Rite Aid argues the proposed cross-complaint is prejudicial. Trial is not set. No major motions are pending. The cross-complaint arises from the same facts as the complaint, minimizing the need for additional discovery. There is no prejudice sufficient to justify denying moving defendants the right to cross-complain.

Rite Aid argues the proposed cross-complaint is unsupported by fact, and the cross-complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a claim that is plausible on its face, not merely speculative, citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) 550 U.S. 544, 555-556. Bell addressed the necessary level of detail for a Sherman Act claim. The claim in Bell was initially stricken pursuant to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the Court was not ruling on whether a claim could be raised initially. The proper tool to challenge the sufficiency of a claims of this proposed cross-complaint is demurrer or summary judgment.

As there is no basis to deny the motion, it is GRANTED.