Judge: Kimberly Knill, Case: 30-2022-01259821-CU-BC-CJC, Date: 2023-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Mayrock Automotive, Inc’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Defendant Mayrock Automotive, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff, 9 Whatney LLC’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

A trial court must allow a party to file a compulsory cross-complaint unless that party has acted in bad faith. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98.)

Here, there is no bad faith.  Plaintiff’s submission of Yao’s declaration does not demonstrate bad faith as it relates to the circumstances surrounding the filing of the motion for leave to file the cross-complaint. Nor has Plaintiff shown how Defendant Mayrock Automotive essentially sitting idle for a year demonstrates bad faith.

As for the other proposed cross-defendants, Plaintiff has no standing to assert any of their rights and they are not currently parties to this action. While the cross-complaint against Hezy Shaked, CBRE, Inc. and a CBRE associate yet to be identified is a permissive cross-complaint, the claims are related to the transaction involved in the complaint and cross-complaint.

Moving party to file its cross-complaint within 5 days.

Moving party to give notice.