Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV44037, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44037    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On December 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Arlander Givens (“Plaintiff”), and Paradise Givens filed a complaint against Defendants David J. Brown (“Brown”), Amber A. Hand (“Hand”), Jose Ramirez Romero (“Romero”), Paula R. Ruelas (“Ruelas), alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and loss of consortium.

Default has been entered against Defendants Hand and Brown.

On April 9, 2025, Defendants Romero and Ruelas (“Defendants”) filed this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. No opposition has been filed.

II.                LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted may file a cross-complaint setting forth:  “(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.”  (CCP § 428.10(b).) A party shall obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if it is not concurrently filed with the answer or at any time before the court sets a trial date. Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.  (CCP § 428.10(c).)

If a cross-complaint is compulsory, leave must be granted as long as the cross-complainant is acting in good faith, so as to avoid forfeiture of the causes of action. (C.C.P. §426.50; See Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 101 (concluding that the late filing of the motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint absent some evidence of bad faith is insufficient evidence to support denial of the motion).) To be considered a compulsory cross-complaint, the related cause of action must have existed at the time defendant served its answer to the complaint. (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide (2008), Civil Procedure Before Trial §6:516; See also Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) If the cross-complaint is not compulsory, but rather is permissive, the Court has sole discretion whether to grant or deny leave. (Id.)

“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through over-sight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action.”  (CCP § 426.50.)  The Court shall grant such a motion if the moving party acted in good faith.  (CCP § 426.50.)  

The determination that the moving party acted in bad faith must be supported by substantial evidence.  (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897 (evidence insufficient to support trial court's denial of motion to file cross-complaint notwithstanding that defendant waited 23 months after service of complaint and 16 months after filing answer before asserting right to file cross-complaint, where nothing in record suggested that defendant was unusually reprehensible with regard to delay, plaintiff waited for two years to file action, and plaintiff’s counsel equivocated concerning stipulation allowing the filing of cross-complaint at same time counsel conducted discovery concerning the claim defendant sought to assert in the cross-complaint).)  

At minimum, a very strong showing of bad faith on the part of the defendant is required before a court will be justified in denial of leave to file or amend a cross-complaint.  (Sidney v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d at 710, 718.)  The burden of showing bad faith rests on the party opposing the allowance of the cross-complaint.  (Silver Organizations, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d 94.) 

A determination that the petitioner acted in bad faith may be premised on “substantial injustice or prejudice” to the opposing party. (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co., supra, 114 Cal.App.3d at 903; See also Gherman v. Colburn (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 544, 558-59 (stating that leave was properly denied when the defendant’s motion “was merely a tactical strategic maneuver to deprive plaintiffs of a right to a jury trial”).)

III.             DISCUSSION

Defendants move to file a cross-complaint against Defendants Brown and Hand, for indemnity, comparative contribution and declaratory relief. Defendants argue that according to the police report, Brown failed to stop for a red light at the limit line and proceeded through the intersection. As a result, Brown collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle and Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed into the Romero/Ruelas’ vehicle.

The Court finds that the cross-complaint is compulsory because it arises out of the same occurrence, namely, the slope on the property adjacent to Plaintiff’s property.  “Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.” (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.) Thus, there must be substantial evidence that Defendants have acted in bad faith to justify a denial of their motion to file a cross-complaint.

No opposition has been filed and thus, no evidence of bad faith has been shown. The motion is therefore granted.

IV.             CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to file and serve the proposed cross-complaint attached as Exhibit A to counsel’s declaration within 10 days of the hearing on this motion. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 15th day of May 2025