Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08134, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08134     Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Winegart Center Association

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

(CCP § 428.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Winegart Center Association’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  

SERVICE: 

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

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of August 3, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 3, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff Kayla Amber Owens (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Winegart Center Association (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability arising out of an alleged slip and fall at Defendant’s facility.  On January 28, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer indicating that its correct name is Weingart Center Association, and denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On May 10, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint (the “Motion”) against The Chrysalis Center.  On the same day as this Motion was filed, and without leave of court, Defendant attempted to file his cross-complaint, which was accepted by the clerk but should not have been.

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

Here, Defendant filed an Answer on January 28, 2022, and trial was scheduled for May 12, 2023.  (Third Amended Standing Order.)  However, leave to file a cross-complaint may still be granted in the interest of justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50(c).)

Plaintiff’s action against Defendant arises from an alleged slip and fall that occurred on January 21, 2020.  (Compl. p. 4.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was negligent for not cleaning up water on the floor of the facility, causing her to fall and sustain personal injuries and property damage.  (Ibid. at p. 3.)  Defendant now seeks to file a cross-complaint against The Chrysalis Center, the company responsible for maintenance and cleaning of Defendant’s facility.  (Mot. p. 3.)  Defendant contends that leave to amend “should be granted because the proposed cause of action arises out of the same set of facts and occurrences as the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint and because the proposed cross-complaint will promote justice and the efficient resolution of related controversies.”  (Mot. p. 5.)  No opposition to the Motion was filed.

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.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Winegart Center Association’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  Defendant’s cross-complaint is deemed accepted by the Court. 

An Order to Show Cause re: failure to file proof of service for cross-complaint is set for November 4, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25, Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.