Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV15260 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in February 2020. Plaintiffs Stephany Bernal, Victor Pompa, and Eddie Bernal Cisneros filed their Complaint against Defendant Geovanny Torres Montalvo on April 22, 2021.

(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.” (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.)

Defendant’s counsel testifies that at the time Defendant filed his answer, the facts surrounding the accident were still unknown and Defendant did not have knowledge of Plaintiff’s damages. (Hoekstra Decl., ¶4.) Defendant’s counsel became aware of further facts about the incident and Plaintiff’s claims for damages during discovery. (Id., ¶5.) Defendant filed his Cross-Complaint after learning of new information in discovery. (Id., ¶6.)

Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is compulsory because it arises from the same injuries alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendant does not explain the delay in filing this Cross-Complaint just two months before trial. It is also unclear what new facts gave rise to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint and when Defendant discovered these facts. Nevertheless, considering public policy favoring liberal construction of Code Civ. Pro. section 426.50, Defendant’s motion is granted. Defendant properly filed a proposed cross-complaint as Exhibit B. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion.