Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV30270, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30270    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

This consolidated personal injury and wrongful death action arises from a fatal fall that occurred on July 16, 2022, at an apartment located at 10660 Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent fell from the 14th-floor balcony of his apartment due to Defendants' failure to properly maintain or repair the guardrail in accordance with building standards.

Defendants Francis R. Mariani, Linda Y. Mariani, and the Francis R. and Linda Y. Mariani Living Trust are the owners and lessors of the subject apartment unit. They contend they were not responsible for the condition of the balcony or guardrail. They now seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Wilshire Manning Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Wilshire Manning”) for equitable indemnity and contribution, asserting that under the applicable CC&Rs, Wilshire Manning was contractually responsible for maintaining the structural components of the balconies, including railings.

Legal Standard

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(b).)  Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.  (Id., § 428.50(c).)  Indeed, where a cause of action would otherwise be lost, leave to amend is appropriate even if the party was negligent in not moving for leave to amend earlier.  “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.”  (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.)  

Under CCP section 428.50, the Court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. ¿A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court.  (Silver Orgs. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 94, 98-99.) ¿A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless substantial evidence of bad faith is demonstrated. ¿(Id.) ¿Bad faith involves conduct, not prompted by an honest mistake, but by some sinister motive, not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. ¿(Id.) ¿Bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. ¿(Id.)  CCP section 426.10 defines a cross-complaint as compulsory when its claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the claims in the complaint. 

Discussion

Defendants seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Wilshire Manning for equitable indemnity and contribution, alleging that Wilshire Manning had the duty to maintain the structural integrity of the subject balcony pursuant to the applicable CC&Rs. The cross-complaint arises out of the same incident and factual circumstances as the main action. The proposed claims are therefore logically and legally related to the current action and are properly asserted under Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10(b).

Because the claims are factually and legally intertwined, there will be substantial overlap in legal issues, evidence, and witnesses. It is in the interest of justice to allow Defendants to assert their claims in this action, rather than require a separate lawsuit that would duplicate effort and risk inconsistent outcomes.

Although Defendants first tendered their defense to Wilshire Manning in March and May of 2023, their decision to delay filing the cross-complaint until after the related cases were consolidated on March 13, 2025, was reasonable in order to avoid duplicative motions. The timing does not suggest bad faith.

No opposition has been filed, and no party has alleged prejudice from filing of this cross complaint. Accordingly, the motion is granted. Defendants are ordered to file and serve their cross-complaint within 20 days of this order.

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’s 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.