Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC05161, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC05161     Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Carlos Castillo

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Carlos Castillo’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to file the proposed cross-complaint within five (5) days of notice of this order.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 YES

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 YES

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     YES

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of October 4, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of October 4, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Carlos Castillo (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an alleged automobile accident that occurred on February 1, 2019.  (Compl.)  Plaintiff compensated its insured for claimed damages in the amount of $8,469.96 and filed the instant action against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)

On October 23, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On June 1, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case, notifying the Court of a related case pending in front of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Wheatley v. Castillo, Case No. 20STCV08169.

On November 22, 2021, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date from December 17, 2021, to August 16, 2022.  (11-22-21 Stipulation and Order.)  Another stipulation to continue trial, filed on June 29, 2022, was denied by the Court.  (6-29-22 Stipulation and Order.)  Subsequently, on August 4, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing Trial and All Related Cut-Off Dates, thus continuing trial to January 4, 2023.  (8-4-22 Minute Order.)

On July 15, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint (“Motion”).

No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 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.”

            “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.  [Citation.]’  [Citations.]’  [Citation.]”  (Ibid. at 100.)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff’s action arose out of a three-vehicle collision that took place on February 1, 2019.  (Mot. p. 3; Compl.)  Defendant was struck by a third-party driver Chelsea Wheatly and as a result, lost control and hit a vehicle insured by Plaintiff State Farm.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff filed the subrogation action against Defendant on June 19, 2020, to recover the sum it paid to its insured.  (Ibid.)  Defendant filed an Answer on October 23, 2020, and trial was initially scheduled for December 17, 2021.  (6-19-20 First Amended Standing Order.)

Defendant seeks to file a cross-complaint on the ground that the allegations arise out of the same transaction as the Complaint and are thus related, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure § 426.10.  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)  Counsel for Defendant inadvertently failed to file the cross-complaint along with the Answer because counsel did not “realize relevant and pertinent information that a cross-complaint was appropriate in the action” and now seeks leave from Court to file the proposed cross-complaint.  (Ibid. at pp. 3-4; Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Ex. A.)  Defendant argues that allowing him to file the cross-complaint “is in the interest of justice,” “will avoid the forfeiture of defendants’ causes of action, and would promote the efficient resolution of all claims between the parties.”  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)  Defendant further states that the instant Motion is based on Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) because failure to file the cross-complaint along with the answer was the result of “mistake and excusable neglect.”  (Ibid. at p. 2.)

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by filing of a cross-complaint.  (Ibid. at p. 5.)  No opposition to the Motion was filed to demonstrate otherwise.

As discussed above, § 426.50 is liberally construed in favor of granting a motion to file a cross-complaint and must be granted unless the moving party acts in bad faith.  The Court discerns no bad faith on Defendant’s part.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to file the Cross-Complaint.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Defendant Carlos Castillo’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to file the proposed cross-complaint within five (5) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.