Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00941, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00941    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 16, 2024                                 TRIAL DATE: April 30, 2024

CASE:                         XIAOYAN ZOU, an individual, and SHENG LIU, an individual, v. YAHHUA CHE, an individual, and DOES 1 to 10.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00941

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Yahue Che (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiffs Xiaoyan Zou and Sheng Liu

SERVICE:                              Filed December 4, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 3, 2024

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.  

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant seeks leave to file a cross-complaint.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiffs Xiaoyan Zou and Sheng Liu (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendant Yahhua Che (“Defendant”) engaged in illegal conduct in an attempt to evict Plaintiffs from property they were renting at 1918 Denton Avenue #E, in San Gabriel, California 91776 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiffs filed this complaint April 27, 2023, alleging four causes of action (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) defamation, and (4) malicious prosecution.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to file its cross-complaint within 10 days of the notice of this order.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs. In Defendant’s proposed cross-complaint, Defendant seeks to allege various contractual and tort claims against Plaintiffs related to the Subject Property.

Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 provides: “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.”

            “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, subd. (c).)

            In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s motion should be denied because they agreed to Defendant’s motion and because a cross-complaint would delay trial. However, to deny Defendant’s motion would effectively bar any claim Defendant may have against Plaintiffs. “Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of aciton which (at the time of the serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a).) The interests of justice and the judicial precept of avoiding forfeiture support allowing Defendant to file a cross-complaint.

            Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s proposed causes of action fail to state a claim or are uncertain. Plaintiffs’ arguments are unavailing for two reasons. First, the court declines to review the merits of the cross-complaint before it is even filed. Second, Plaintiffs’ argument that each of Defendant’s cause of action is invalid is not supported by a single citation to legal authority. Plaintiffs have failed to establish any grounds to deny Defendant’s motion.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to file its cross-complaint within 10 days of the notice of this order.

Dated:   January 16, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org