Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV21727, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21727    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:           4/18/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name.:      22STCV21727 ANGEL RIOS, et al. vs EDWARD CATALANREAL

Motion Name:           MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT

Moving Party:           Defendants Federal Express Corporation and Edward Catalan

Responding Party:    Plaintiff

Notice:                     Sufficient

Ruling:                     MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.

Legal Standard

A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint.  (CCP §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.)  Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date.  (CCP §428.50(b).)

If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint.  (CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).)  Leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith. (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)  Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice. (CCP §428.50(c).) Where the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint so long as defendant is acting in good faith.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

Analysis

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Angel Rio and Vianca Ortega filed the present auto collision case. Plaintiff Rio was the driver of the vehicle, and Plaintiff Ortega was a passenger. The vehicles involved were both changing lanes to the middle lane when Defendant Federal Express's vehicle driven by Defendant Edward Catalan rear-ended Plaintiffs. Defendants filed their answer on February 8, 2023. Recent discovery purportedly revealed that Plaintiff Rio did not need to change lanes into the middle lane where the incident occurred. Defendants contend that had Plaintiff not changed lanes, the accident could have been avoided. Defendants now move the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Rio for contribution to Plaintiff Ortega’s injuries.

In the motion, Defendants inadvertently attached Plaintiff Rio's Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), which did not support Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff Rio did not need to change lanes and that the accident could have been avoided. In the reply, Defendants attached the correct discovery response where Rio admitted that he could have remained in the lane closest to the center of the southbound lanes of N. Sepulveda Blvd. instead of moving to the middle of the three southbound lanes as he approached the collision area on N. Sepulveda Blvd. (Plaintiff’s response to RFA No. 4.)

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that there is a basis for Defendants to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Rio. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not present any evidence that Defendant was acting in bad faith. Although the Court acknowledges that several months have passed since Plaintiff’s responses to the requests for admissions to Defendants’ filing of the present motion, any prejudice to the other party would be minimal because Defendants’ cross complaint for Plaintiff Rio’s contribution rests on the same facts already litigated to date. Thus, the present motion is GRANTED.  Defendants cross-complaint is to be filed and served within 5 court days of this ruling.

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.