Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 19STCV16785, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 17, 2023

Case Name: Henry’s Tacos, Inc. v. Vega, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV03927

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Omar Vega and Noemi Vega 

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Henry’s Tacos, Inc., Gilberto Vega, and Maria Vega

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a dispute relating to the operation of a taco business.  Defendants Omar Vega and Noemi Vega seek leave to file a cross-complaint alleging six causes of action against Plaintiffs Henry’s Tacos, Inc., Gilberto Vega, and Maria Vega.

Cross-complaints fall into two categories—permissive and compulsory.  Compulsory cross-complaints consist of those causes of action existing at the time of service of the answer that the defendant must bring against the plaintiff, or else forfeit the right to bring them in any other action.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30(a).)  Specifically, compulsory cross-complaints consist of those causes of action that “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.”  (Id. § 426.10(c).)  To avoid piecemeal litigation, courts liberally construe the term “transaction”—it is “ ‘not confined to a single, isolated act or occurrence . . . but may embrace a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated.’ ” (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 960.)  Parties seeking to file untimely compulsory cross-complaints may file with the Court for leave to do so, even though the failure to timely file resulted from oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)  In such a case, after notice to the adverse party, the Court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint if the party acted in good faith.  

Unrelated claims and those claims arising after service of the answer are permissive, not compulsory.  (Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)  Permissive cross-complaints are governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 428.50(c), which provides, “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.”  The decision to grant permission to file a permissive cross-complaint rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.  (Orient Handel v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701.)

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs argue the Motion is untimely.  The Court, however, will consider the Motion because Plaintiffs were able to file a full opposition and were, therefore, not prejudiced.  

The proposed cross-claims are compulsory in nature because they arise out of the operation of the same taco business.  Therefore, the inquiry is whether Defendants acted in good faith.

Here, there is nothing to indicate bad faith conduct.  Plaintiffs claim prejudice based on the November 6, 2023, trial date.  However, the Court can simply provide a brief trial continuance to neutralize any such prejudice.  This will be discussed at the Motion hearing.

The Motion is granted. 

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.