Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 23STCV12816, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DIVINA VILLEDA, et al.,

Case No.: 23STCV12816

Hearing Date: December 14, 2023

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

DEFENDANT HOOD’S FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

Defendant Vilma Hood’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

Defendant Hood must file and serve the cross-complaint within 15 days after the date of this order.

Defendant Hood must file the proof of service within 20 days after the date of this order.

The Court sets an OSC Re: Dismissal of the Cross-Complaint for Failure to File Proof of Service/Failure to Enter Default for January 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

Moving party to provide notice.

This is an action for wrongful termination, violations of the Labor Code, false imprisonment, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs allege that they were working as Defendants’ caretakers. Plaintiffs witnessed Defendant Hood abusing her wife, Defendant Tarble. After Plaintiff Villeda reported the abuse to adult protective services, a social worker visited Defendants’ home to interview Tarble and left a business card after no one answered the door. In May 2022, Villeda reported the abuse to police. A social worker again stated she wanted to interview Tarble. After Tarble fell and broke her hip, Villeda told a nurse at the hospital where she was being treated about Hood’s abuse. Villeda reported the abuse to the hospital’s social worker who stated she would report the abuse to Adult Protective Services. In April 2022, just before Tarble was to be discharged from the hospital, another social worker left his card at her house. Another social worker interviewed Tarble on August 22, 2022. The next day, Hood yelled at Villeda, accusing her of calling Adult Protective Services. In September 2022, police officers and the social worker who interviewed Tarble interviewed Tarble again and then interviewed Villeda. Villeda made a statement that Tarble fell and broke her hip because she was drunk after Hood ordered others to give her alcohol. Defendant Nalayeh attempted to intimidate Villeda into changing her statement. Defendants terminated Villeda for reporting the elder abuse. After Villeda was terminated, Defendant Hood falsely imprisoned Gamboa by locking the gate of the house and leaving Gamboa locked in. Gamboa was terminated in October 2022.

On June 6, 2023, Plaintiffs Divina Villeda and Consuela “Lucy” Gamboa filed their Complaint against Vilma Hood, Jan Tarble, Dega Nalayeh, Radostina Videnova, and San Pasqual Fiduciary Trust Company, as trustee of the Jan Tarble Trust (“Trust”).

On July 26, 2023, Trust answered.

On August 14 and 18, 2023, Hood, Nalaye, and Videnova answered.

On October 4, 2023, the Court scheduled trial for November 25, 2024.

On October 18, 2023, Defendant Hood filed this motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint.

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.)

Here, Hood moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint under Code Civ. Proc., section 428.50(c) on the grounds that filing a Cross-Complaint is in the interests of justice because Hood believes she is owed indemnity from a staffing agency that was Plaintiff’s employer during the events described in the Complaint. Because the proposed Cross-Complaint arises from the same series of occurrences leading up to Plaintiff’ termination, the proposed Cross-Complaint is compulsory. As Plaintiffs point out, Hood failed to provide any reason for the delay. Nevertheless, neglect is not a ground upon which to deny the motion unless Hood acted in bad faith. Although Hood failed to discuss Code Civ. Proc., section 426.5, Hood there is no evidence that Hood is acting in bad faith. Hood’s motion is granted.

DATED: December 14, 2023

________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court