Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01158, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01158    Hearing Date: November 1, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Silva Mirzoyan (Plaintiff) brings this action against Garfield Beach CVS, LLC (CVS), Cultured Investments, LLC (Cultured), Specialized Realty, LLC, and Abstract Holdings, LLC (Abstract) (collectively Defendants). Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she tripped and fell on an unmarked parking block in a parking lot located at 6588 Foothill Blvd., Tujunga, CA 91042. Plaintiff states causes of action for (1) Negligence, and (2) Premises Liability.

Before the Court are two motions by CVS seeking leave to file a Cross-Complaint as against Co-Defendants Cultured and Abstract.

The Court notes that these motions are unopposed. Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed acquiescence to the merits of the motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.                LEGAL STANDARDS

There are two types of cross-complaints: compulsory cross-complaints and permissive cross-complaints. A compulsory cross-complaint is a cross-complaint that is asserted against the plaintiff and related to the subject matter of the complaint. (C.C.P.§ 426.30.) A cross-complaint is “related” to the complaint if it arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the complaint. (C.C.P.§ 426.10(c).) All other cross-complaints are permissive cross-complaints.

C.C.P. § 426.50 provides that: “A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”

A liberal construction is given to the application of the compulsory cross-complaint statute. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Bao Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 967.) “The test requires not an absolute identity of factual backgrounds for the two claims, but only a logical relationship between them.” The key question is whether there “are any factual or legal issues relevant to both claims,” as the goal is to avoid duplication of time and effort that comes from separate suits on the same events. (Currie Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Bowen (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 774, 777.) Claims that are only loosely related in that they involve some of the same parties and the same matter, directly or indirectly, are not logically related if the trial of the claims does not involve a duplication of time and effort due to the fact that there are factual and legal issues that are relevant to both claims. (ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 69, 84.)

If the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory, leave must be granted so long as defendant is acting in good faith. (C.C.P.§ 426.50.) If the proposed cross-complaint is permissive, leave of court may be granted “in the interests of justice” at any time during the course of the action. (C.C.P.§ 428.50(c).)

II.              MERITS

Regardless of whether the Cross-Complaint is compulsory or permissive, as will be explained below, the Court finds that the Cross-Complaints would indeed serve the interests of justice and should be permitted.

As against Cultured, CVS seeks leave to file a Cross-Complaint stating causes of action for (1) Express Indemnity, (2) Implied Contractual Indemnity, (3) Equitable Indemnity, (4) Contribution, (5) Declaratory Relief, (6) Equitable Apportionment of Fault, and (7) Breach of Contract. (Peregretti Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. D.)

As against Abstract, CVS seeks leave to file a Cross-Complaint stating causes of action for (1) Equitable Indemnification, (2) Contribution, (3) Declaratory Relief, and (4) Equitable Apportionment of Fault. (Peregretti Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. D.)

The Court first notes that neither Cultured nor Abstract have opposed the motion, and thus have not shown they would be prejudiced by the Cross-Complaints. The Court must balance this failure to oppose with the observation that trial in this matter is scheduled for January 13, 2025. The filing of Cross-Complaints so close to the commencement of trial inherently raises concerns regarding prejudice to Cultured and Abstract in being able to properly prepare for trial.

The Court also observes that CVS offers no explanation as to the delay between the filing of its Answer on June 3, 2023 and the filing of these motions. CVS bases its motion entirely on the pleadings in Plaintiff’s Complaint and presents no new facts obtained in discovery which brought their proposed claims to light. In short, CVS provides no explanation for why it neglected to move for a Cross-Complaint in the days this case has been pending since filing of an answer.

On the other hand, the Court finds allowing CVS to file the Cross-Complaints would prevent duplicative litigation. CVS correctly contends that the issues as to which party was responsible for “maintaining, inspecting, lighting, managing and supervising, controlling and/or operating the premises” is intimately intertwined with Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. Allowing the Cross-Complaints would obviate the need for additional litigation in a relatively straightforward personal injury matter. Despite the lack of explanation as to the delay in filing, the Court is of the opinion that permitting the Cross-Complaints would serve the interests of justice by reducing the multiplicity of actions resulting from this singular incident.

Accordingly, the motions for leave to file the Cross-Complaint are GRANTED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Garfield Beach CVS, LLC’s Motions for Leave to File Cross-Complaint came on regularly for hearing on November 1, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT AS AGAINST DEFENDANT CULTURED INVESTMENTS, LLC IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT AS AGAINST DEFENDANT ABSTRACT HOLDINGS, LLC IS GRANTED.

CVS IS TO FILE THEIR CROSS-COMPLAINTS WITHIN 15 DAYS.

CVS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  November 1, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles