Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV04523 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Jean Yuna Horihata and Mark Rappaport filed their Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, the State of California, and Luis Gaytan Hernandez. Plaintiffs’ causes of action include Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Negligence, and Loss of Consortium. This action arises from a vehicle collision which took place in February 2021.

City seeks to file a cross-complaint against Donell Wilson Jr. on the grounds that Wilson caused a prior accident at the intersection where Plaintiff’s accident occurred, knocking over a traffic signal and creating the dangerous condition that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

(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.)

City seeks to file a cross-complaint against Wilson, who was allegedly responsible for the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff’s injury. City only discovered Wilson’s identity after receiving Plaintiffs’ responses to written discovery on July 11, 2022. (McGuire Decl., ¶5.) Plaintiffs’ responses included the recorded statements of two witnesses who stated that a prior collision occurred when a Lamborghini ran a red light and collided with the traffic signal, knocking it over and necessitating the temporary signal which Plaintiff alleges caused her accident. (Id.) City’s counsel did not discover the prior accident until August 5, 2022 because he was engaged in trial preparation for another case. (Id., ¶6.) On August 8, 2022, City’s counsel obtained the Traffic Collision Report from LAPD on the prior accident, which revealed that Wilson was the driver of the Lamborghini that allegedly created the dangerous condition that injured Plaintiff. (Id., ¶7.) City filed the instant motion on August 10, 2022.

Here, City appears to be acting in good faith by bringing a cross-complaint soon after discovering Wilson’s identity and his role in the prior accident. Wilson and the other parties in this matter will not be prejudiced because trial is currently set for August 4, 2023, nearly one year from now. Accordingly, City’s motion is granted.