Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV14961, Date: 2023-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 16, 2023

Case Name: Ma v. Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services, et al.

Case No.: 18STCV07962

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Vista Del Mar Family and Child Services

Responding Party: Unopposed

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. 



On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff Dan Ma filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) against Defendant Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services for (1) fraudulent inducement, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) breach of written contract, and (5) breach of oral contract.  

The allegations of the 4AC are as follows. Plaintiff gave her child up for adoption through Defendant, an adoption agency.  Plaintiff signed a relinquishment agreement as to her child.  Plaintiff could not speak English and was not shown an English translation of the agreement.  She also had a difficult time understanding the formal Mandarin agreement that was provided to her.  However, Plaintiff was told by the Defendant's interpreter that she had a 30-day period to cancel the agreement.  This was a fraudulent representation.  Within 30 days of signing the relinquishment agreement, Plaintiff sought to rescind the agreement and obtain her child.  Defendant refused to return Plaintiff’s child because Defendant was motivated by a substantial payment from the adoptive parents.  

Defendant now seeks leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity and related claims against Huina Allyson Huang, who was the interpreter.   

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 there is no opposition, the Motion is granted.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

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. 








Case Number: 21STCV14961    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Department 20