Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC623542, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: December 8, 2022

Case Name: Juarez, et al. v. Ballaj, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV38388

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Ballaj and Nadeem Ballaj

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Elias Juarez and Maria Noh

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 wage and hour and employment action.  Defendants Ballaj and Nadeem Ballaj filed their Answer on March 14, 2022.

Defendants now seek leave to file a cross-complaint asserting causes of action against Plaintiffs for “concealing and suppressing their COVID-19 illness despite multiple inquiries and thereby causing significant economic damage to Defendant.”

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.)

The proposed cross-claims seem to be compulsory in nature because they arise out of Plaintiffs’ employment.  Therefore, the inquiry is whether Defendants acted in good faith.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have acted in bad faith because the facts about Plaintiffs’ COVID-19 illness were known to Defendants at the time they filed a motion to set aside default judgment in December 2021, such that there is inexcusable delay

Even if true, given that the trial date is set for April 2024, it is hard to find sufficient bad faith warranting a denial of the Motion.

As it seems Defendants have substantially acted in good faith, the Motion is granted.  The cross-complaint should be filed within ten days.

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.