Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV12953, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12953 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: 27
Complaint: 4/18/22
Hon. Lee
S. Arian¿¿¿¿
Department
27¿¿¿¿
Tentative
Ruling¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿
Hearing Date: 3/20/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿¿¿¿¿
Case No./Name.: 22STCV12953 LILLIAN TOSTADO vs CITY OF
MONTEBELLO
Motion: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT
Moving Party: Defendant City of Montebello
Responding Party: Unopposed¿¿¿
Notice: Sufficient¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿¿
Ruling: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT IS GRANTED
Background¿
This action
arises out of a trip and fall incident which occurred on April 23, 2020, in the
City of Montebello. On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
present case against Defendant City of Montebello. Through discovery, Defendant
City was able to learn that a tree located on private property owned by Montebello
Senior Villas L.P. caused/contributed to a
displacement of the sidewalk where Plaintiff fell. Defendant City now moves the
court for leave to file a cross complaint against Montebello
Senior Villas L.P.
Legal Standard¿
¿
Code of Civil Procedure section
428.50 provides:¿¿
¿¿
“(a) A party
shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint
or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer
to the complaint or cross-complaint.¿¿
¿¿
(b) Any other
cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for
trial.¿¿
¿¿
(c)¿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.”¿¿
¿¿
(Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 428.50.)¿¿¿
¿¿
“A party who
fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article,
whether through oversight, 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. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon
such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to
file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead
the cause acted in good faith.¿ This subdivision
shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)
(Emphasis added.)¿¿
¿¿
The Court of
Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal
construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is
imposed on the trial¿court. A motion
to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be
granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture
would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect,
mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless
accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank¿(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.)
“‘‘Bad faith,’ is defined as ‘[t]he opposite of
‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or
a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some
duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . .,
but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or
negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of
dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind
affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. (Id. at 100.)¿¿
¿
A cross-complaint
is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the
defendant’s answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc.
§ 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990)
221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) A related cause
of action is “. . . a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action
which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc.
§ 426.10, subd. (c).) Leave must be
granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in
good faith. (See Code Civ. Proc. §
426.50.)
¿
Analysis and Conclusion
Defendant City's cross-complaint is
mandatory, as it seeks to file a claim for indemnity against MONTEBELLO SENIOR
VILLAS L.P. for causes of action alleged against Defendant City in the
Complaint. Moreover, Defendant City’s delay is justified as it did not learn
the exact location of the incident until it conducted discovery and learned for
the first time that a tree on Montebello Senior Villas L.P.'s property could
have caused the displacement of the sidewalk leading to Plaintiff's trip and
fall. Additionally, Plaintiff does not contend that she will be prejudiced by
the filing of the cross-complaint, as there has been no opposition filed. Thus,
Defendant City’s motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant City is ordered to file its
cross-complaint within 5 court days of this ruling.
Moving Party to give notice.
¿¿¿
¿PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to
the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT”
followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date
and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party
submitting.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the
parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral
argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the
hearing to argue.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing,
the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the
order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the
Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
¿¿¿
¿
¿