Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00438, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20TRCV00438 Hearing Date: October 27, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, October 27, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 7
PROCEEDINGS
Jasmine White, et al. v. Chateau Park Casino Royal IV, LLC, et al.
20TRCV00438
Chateau Park Casino Royal IV, LLC, et al.’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
Chateau Park Casino Royal IV, LLC, et al.’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is granted.
Background
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on June 23, 2020. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs leased property from Defendants and were injured due to the uninhabitable conditions on the property. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Violation of Civ. Code § 1942.4; 2. Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; 3. Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 4. Nuisance; 5. Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200; 6. Negligence and Negligent Hiring and Training.
Defendant moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint to assert claims against the prior owner of the apartment project.
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.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the ground that Defendant unduly delayed in filing this motion. Plaintiffs point to the fact that it will be over two years from the date the Complaint was filed to the hearing date of this motion. Plaintiffs state that the trial date is imminent, and Defendants had, or should have had, all facts at their disposal to assert the claims made in the Cross-Complaint at the time the Complaint and Answers were filed. However, mere delay in filing the proposed Cross-Complaint is not sufficient to deny this 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, and Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants has acted in bad faith. 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. Again, there is no showing that moving Defendants acted in bad faith in making this motion. There is no showing that granting the motion will cause Plaintiffs substantial prejudice and injustice. The Court will consider continuing the trial date and extending the discovery cut off date to correspond to the new trial date.
Therefore, as there is no showing that Defendants acted in bad faith in making this motion, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is granted.
Defendants are directed to file and serve the proposed Cross-Complaint within five days of this date.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.