Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00306, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00306    Hearing Date: January 31, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION 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 required 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: 

Guzh Khachikyan (Plaintiff) brings this action against Boots Nucum Apelacio (Apelacio), Amazon Logistics, Inc. (Amazon), and Cali Shipping, Inc. (Cali Shipping). Plaintiff alleges his vehicle was struck by a delivery van owned by Amazon and Cali Shipping and operated by Apelacio.

Before the Court is a motion by Amazon and Cali Shipping (hereinafter Moving Parties) for leave to file a Cross-Complaint. Moving Parties contend that the claim contained in their Cross-Complaint arises from the same occurrence and is thus compulsory. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the Cross-Complaint is not compulsory.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Under California's compulsory cross-complaint statute, “if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.” (C.C.P. § 426.30 (a).) A “related cause of action” means a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (C.C.P. § 426.10(c).)

If a defendant fails to file a compulsory cross-complaint at the time of filing and serving an answer, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, a judge must grant the defendant leave to belatedly file the cross-complaint if (1) the defendant has acted in good faith and (2) has given the plaintiff notice that the defendant is seeking the court's permission to file the cross-complaint. The judge may condition leave to amend on just terms. (C.C.P. § 426.50.)

The burden is on the party opposing a motion for leave to demonstrate substantial evidence that the moving party is acting in bad faith. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.) 

II.                 MERITS

Facts

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on April 7, 2022, his vehicle was side swiped by a van operated by Apelacio and owned by Moving Parties. (Compl. p. 4.) The location of the incident is alleged to be “on eastbound Valencia Ave. at or near the intersection with 6th St., in Burbank, CA 91501.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he was injured by virtue of the contact between the vehicles. (Id.)

The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges that on April 7, 2022, Plaintiff opened his door into the side of the van operated by Apelacio. (Seal Decl. Exh. A ¶ 7.) The location of the incident is alleged to be “East Valencia Avenue, at or near the intersection of 6th Street, in Burbank, California.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) Moving Parties allege that as a result of Plaintiff’s actions, their van was damaged and required repairs totaling $7,508. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

Discussion

The Court finds the proposed Cross-Complaint is compulsory in nature. Moving Parties’ claim for damages to its van undeniably arises out of the same occurrence as Plaintiff’s claims. Though Moving Parties did not file a Cross-Complaint at the time they rendered their Answer, C.C.P. § 426.50 is clear that relief must be granted where Plaintiff has received notice and has not demonstrated substantial evidence of bad faith. Moving Parties have clearly provided notice and thus the only remaining question is whether Plaintiff has demonstrated bad faith. As will be explained below, the Court finds Plaintiff has not done so. 

Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition are that (1) the Cross-Complaint is not compulsory, (2) Moving Parties’ claim does not reach the threshold of an unlimited jurisdiction, (3) that Moving Parties will not be prejudiced by denial because they can bring the action separately, and (4) that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a delay in trial. The Court finds these arguments are unpersuasive and do not speak to Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate bad faith of the Moving Parties.

The cases which Plaintiff cites in arguing that the Cross-Complaint is not compulsory are inapposite. In Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald, the court found leave was properly denied where the proposed cross-complaint was based on occurrences that happened several months after the occurrence giving rise to the plaintiff’s initial claims. (Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) In Clark v. EZN, Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 852, the trial court found the defendant’s claims in his cross-complaint were entirely unrelated to the loan obligation which formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. (Clark v. EZN, Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 852, 859.) The appellate court stated that it could not conclude the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law. (Id.) Here, the incident giving rise to Moving Parties’ claim is the exact same as that giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims.  As such, the holdings of Crocker or Clark appear applicable to the instant case.

As concerns the monetary threshold, Plaintiff cites no authority for his argument that this factor into a determination of relatedness under C.C.P. § 426.10(c). Even were the value of Amazon’s claims to be a valid consideration, C.C.P. § 403.030 makes clear that the amount in controversy requirement considers original and cross-claims cumulatively.  Furthermore, CRC 3.300(h) authorizes unlimited jurisdiction court to related cases, even those that are not filed as unlimited jurisdiction cases, even probate and family law matters.

Plaintiff’s argument that Moving Parties will not be prejudiced is incorrect as a matter of law. C.C.P. § 426.30(a) explicitly provides that Moving Parties’ failure to assert claims arising out of this occurrence would bar them from pursuing separate litigation. The law is very clear that Moving Parties cannot, as Plaintiff suggests, file their claims as a separate action. Further, this argument does not speak to bad faith.

Lastly, Plaintiff’s argument as to a delay in trial is also unpersuasive as trial has not been set for this matter, nor given the facts of the underlying cross-complaint likely to significantly delay trial.

In summary, the Cross-Complaint presents a claim which is compulsory because it arises out of the same occurrence giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Moving Parties have provided notice of their motion and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any bad faith. Accordingly, leave must be granted leave to file the Cross-Complaint under C.C.P. § 426.50.

--- 

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 

Amazon Logistics Inc. & Cali Shipping, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on January 31, 2025, 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 IS GRANTED.

OSC RE SERVICE OF CROSS-COMPLAINT IS SET FOR MARCH 17, 2025 AT 9:00 AM.

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND STATUS OF MEDIATION IS ADVANCED AND CONTINUE TO MARCH 17, 2025 AT 9:00 AM.

AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC. (DEFENDANT) TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.