Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV05496 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV05496, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

PLEASE NOTE:

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Case Number: 21STCV05496 Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

February 7, 2023

21STCV05496

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint filed by Defendant DPI Specialty Foods, Inc.

DECISION

The motion is granted.

Defendant DPI must separately file and serve the cross-complaint within five days after the date of this order.

Cross-Defendant Ralph’s must file its answer or other responsive pleading within 30 days after service of the cross-complaint.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five days after the date of this order.

Background

This is an action for premises liability and negligence arising from a workplace accident involving a falling fruit and nut bin dispensary. Plaintiff Anabella Jones filed her Complaint against Ralphs Grocery Company (“Ralphs”) on February 10, 2021.

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment naming DPI Specialty Foods, Inc. (“DPI”) as a defendant in this action.

On January 17, 2023, DPI filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

Summary

Moving Arguments

DPI moves for leave to file a cross-complaint on the grounds that it received information during discovery that Ralphs may have contributed to Plaintiff’s fall and injuries.

Opposing Arguments

None filed. DPI filed a notice of non-opposition.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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. (Id. at 100.)

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) A related cause of action is “. . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).) Leave must be granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in good faith. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)

Discussion

DPI moves for leave to file its Cross-Complaint against Defendant Ralphs on the grounds the DPI discovered evidence in discovery that Ralphs may have contributed to the subject accident.

DPI argues in its motion that Ralphs is the owner of the subject premises and has liability in this case. (Motion, p. 5.) Ralphs manages the subject premises where the incident occurred and where the bins at issue were located. (Id.) DPI intends to file a motion for summary adjudication against Ralphs on the issues of indemnification, duty to defend, contribution, and declaratory relief. (Id.) DPI’s counsel testifies that it discovered information related to Ralphs’ liability during discovery. (Henke Decl., ¶5.)

It appears DPI is acting in good faith by moving for leave to file its cross-complaint promptly after receiving information as to Ralphs’ liability in discovery. DPI properly filed a proposed cross-complaint as Exhibit A. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and there is sufficient time before trial on October 10, 2023 for the parties to prepare for trial. Considering public policy favoring liberal construction of Code Civ. Pro. section 426.50, DPI’s motion is granted.