Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20STCV02458, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02458    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                Wednesday, February 1, 2023

Department B                                                                                                                                              Calendar No. 5

PROCEEDINGS

L.O., et al. v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District, et al.

            20STCV02458

1.      Hawthorne Unified School District’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING

 Hawthorne Unified School District’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is granted.

Background

Plaintiff L.O., through his guardian ad litem Jules Laird, filed his Complaint on January 21, 2020. Plaintiff’s operative Third Amended Complaint was filed on January 18, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Minor Plaintiff, L.O., who has a disability, alleges that an instructional aide (“(Debra) Jane Doe”) employed at Jonas Salk Elementary School (“Salk”), a school within the Hawthorne Unified School District (“HUSD”), committed acts of physical assault upon Plaintiff on January 23, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Manhattan Beach Unified School District (“MBUSD”) is his home district charged with providing him with a free and appropriate special needs education because his parents reside within the jurisdictional boundaries of MBUSD. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to an agreement and master contracts among MBUSD, Salk, and HUSD, MBUSD enrolled L.O. to Salk. Individual Defendants Michael D. Matthews (“Matthews”), Megan Locklear (“Locklear”), and Michelle Sumner (“Sumner”) were former or current employees of MBUSD. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Negligence; 2. Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision; 3. IIED.

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 428.10(b)(1): “A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following: Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him. . .” The instant cross-complaint is compulsory since it “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.” Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10.

Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50 states:

“(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.

(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 426.50: “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 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 during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result.  Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.”  Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.  Mere delay in filing the proposed Cross-Complaint is not sufficient to deny a motion absent substantial injustice and prejudice.  Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 903–904. Actual bad faith must be demonstrated.

Here, the interest of justice supports granting leave to file the Cross-Complaint to allow all disputes between all parties to be adjudicated in one action.  There is no showing that moving Defendant acted in bad faith in making this motion. There is no showing that granting the motion will cause Plaintiff substantial prejudice and injustice.

Therefore, as there is no showing that Defendant acted in bad faith in making this motion, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is granted.

Defendant is directed to file and serve the proposed Cross-Complaint within five days of this date.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.