Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 19SMCV02157, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV02157    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Shawn Dreamer (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Ray Consulting Group Ventures, Inc. (“Defendant”) and others stemming from a dispute regarding the habitability of a condominium located in Marina Del Rey, California. Defendant brings this motion seeking leave of Court to file a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Motions for leave to file a Cross-Complaint are governed by Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50, which provides:

(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.

“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.” (C.C.P. § 426.50.) (Emphasis added.)

The Court of Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. 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.) “‘‘Bad faith,’ is defined as ‘[t]he opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . ., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 100.)

Analysis

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims against Defendant and others for wrongful eviction, breach of contract, breach of the warranty of habitability, negligence, and related causes of action stemming from Plaintiff’s tenancy at a condominium in Marina Del Rey, California. Defendant seeks leave of Court to file a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff which seeks to recover unpaid rent from Plaintiff for the condominium.

As set forth above, under California’s liberal pleading rules, a motion for leave to assert a cross-complaint must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. The Court finds good cause supports granting Defendants’ motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint. Defendant argues this proposed Cross-Complaint directly relates to the habitability claims raised by Plaintiff’s Complaint and will not burden or prejudice Plaintiff in any way as discovery on this issue has already been completed. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion or otherwise dispute the representations made by Defendant.

The Court finds Defendant has met its burden in seeking leave to file a Cross-Complaint under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 426.50, 428.50 and the Court therefor GRANTS Defendant’s motion for leave to file the Cross-Complaint attached to the Declaration of Collin Glantz.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.