Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV43004, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43004    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

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

            On 11/20/2020, Plaintiffs Rafael H. Salgado and William Salgado (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Memo’s Scaffolding Norwalk, Inc. (Defendant) alleging: (1) strict liability; and (2) negligence and negligence per se.

            Now, Defendant moves for leave to file a cross-complaint.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks discretionary leave from this court to file a cross-complaint. Defendant contends that due to medical reasons, Defendant’s counsel was first able to discuss the facts of the case with the president of Defendant in July 2022 and only then learned facts giving rise to the cross-complaint. Additionally, Defendant’s tender upon written agreement to the proposed cross-defendant’s insurance company was denied on July 11, 2022.

Code of Civil Procedure § 426.50 provides in relevant part: “A party... may apply to the court for leave... to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course the action. The court... shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave... 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.”

            Here, Defendant has offered a reasonable explanation for why it is belatedly filed a compulsory cross-complaint. Indeed, Plaintiffs entered into a stipulation with Defendant agreeing to allow it to file a cross-complaint and extend all statutory options available to them.  As such, there is no basis to conclude that Defendant has acted in bad faith here. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 94. 99.) (“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.”)

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.