Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV04337, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04337    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff Pulaski Stringfellow filed a single cause of action for negligence against Owens Brockway Glass Container Inc. and Frontier Transportation, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that on February 12, 2019, he sustained injuries while unloading a trailer at Owens’ facility in Vernon, California, and attributes his injuries to the negligence of both defendants. Owens answered the Complaint on April 19, 2021.

On November 5, 2021, Owens tendered defense and indemnification to both Dedicated Fleet Systems, Inc. and Frontier. On October 5, 2022, Dedicated accepted the tender. Owens does not indicate whether Frontier has accepted the tender. Owens alleges that Dedicated has not indemnified or defended Owens since accepting tender.

Owens now seeks leave of court to file a cross-complaint against Dedicated and Frontier for indemnity. Trial is set for November 3, 2025.

Legal Standard

CCP section 428.10 provides the following: 

A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following:

a.           Any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes the filing of a cross-complaint against the plaintiff in an action commenced under Title 7 (commencing with Section 1230.010) of Part 3.

b.          Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.) 

After the trial date has been set, a party seeking to file a cross-complaint must obtain leave of court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c).)  Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.  (Id.)

Discussion

Owens’ claims for indemnity are permissive cross-complaints, and the Court must find good cause to grant leave under Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50(c). However, the Court finds the timing of the motion troubling.

On November 5, 2021, Owens tendered defense and indemnification to both Dedicated and Frontier. Owens’ counsel states that Dedicated accepted tender in October 2022 but has since refused to defend the action and ignored Owens’ attempts to meet and confer. If that is the case, why did Owens wait approximately two and a half years to file the present motion, particularly with trial only six months away?

Additionally, Owens’ declaration does not state whether Frontier accepted the tender. If Frontier rejected the tender or failed to respond, Owens provides no explanation for waiting more than three years to seek leave to file a cross-complaint.

Dedicated raises the issue of delay in its opposition. In reply, Owens does not offer any reasonable explanation as to why, despite asserting that Dedicated refused to defend and failed to respond to meet and confer efforts, Owens waited over two years to bring this motion. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 8.)

At the same time, the Court is concerned about the impact of Plaintiff’s recent amendment of the Complaint to name a Doe defendant and how that action impacts the current trial date.  Accordingly, the Court will hear from the parties.