Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV20263, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 16, 2025

Case Name: ACE Diversion, Inc. v. 1530 Date Street, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV25336

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants 1530 Date Street, LLC and non-party Aron Petrosian

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On October 17, 2023, Ace Diversion, Inc. filed the operative Complaint against Defendant 1530 Date Street, LLC for (1) specific performance and (2) breach of contract.

Defendant 1530 Date Street, LLC and its principal, non-party Aron Petrosian, now seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Ace Diversion, Inc., Haik Petrosian, and Suzanne Petrosian for (1) fraud, (2) financial elder abuse, (3) declaratory relief, (4) rescission, and (5) reformation.

No opposition was filed.

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 Court will allow the proposed cross-complaint; however, the Court will not allow Aron Petrosian to be a cross-complainant.  This is because he is a non-party and a “cross-complaint may [only] be filed by the original defendant or by anyone against whom a cross-complaint has been filed. [CCP § 428.10]”  (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 6-D.)  The Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.

Moving party to give notice.