Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV30375, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30375    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a premises liability action that arose from an accident on July 7, 2022. On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff Hakob Torosyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Invitation Homes Realty California Inc. and Does 1 to 25, alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later filed Doe amendments naming Defendants THR California, LP and THR Property Management LP. Defendants Invitation Homes Realty California Inc. (“Invitation Homes”), THR California, LP, and THR Property Management LP are herein collectively referred to as “Defendants”.

On December 26, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Artur Ghazaryant. On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the motion.  On January 16, 2024, Defendants filed a reply.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

(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.) 

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.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendants seek leave of the Court to file a cross-complaint against Artur Ghazaryant (“Artur”) in connection with the underlying accident. Defendants contend they learned of Artur during Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which revealed that Plaintiff was on the subject property upon invitation of Artur. Artur was purportedly a tenant of the subject property at the time of the accident. (Motion, Ex. 1, ¶2.) Defendants contend good cause exists to allow them to pursue their cross-complaint against Artur since their claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as Plaintiff’s complaint, it would be in the interests of justice and judicial economy, and no prejudice will result.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends there has been no discovery of any new facts justifying leave to file a cross-complaint and that such facts regarding Artur were known at the outset. Plaintiff contends Defendants’ time to file the cross-complaint was at the time of the answer almost two years ago, not three months before trial. Plaintiff argues granting Defendants’ motion would only delay adjudication. Plaintiff further argues that Artur’s invitation to Plaintiff does not affect the outcome of this action either.

While the Court finds Defendants’ motion wanting in some respects, the Court does not find those deficiencies sufficient to justify denying their motion. Defendants fail to explain why they waited four months after deposing Plaintiff before seeking leave to file the proposed Cross-Complaint, especially less than three months before trial.

However, the Court notes that Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence to support the argument that Defendants were aware of Artur from the outset of this action. Moreover, the policy favoring adjudication of the entire action is sufficiently strong to warrant granting Defendants leave to amend. (See Silver Organizations Ltd., supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 98-99.) The Court also finds Plaintiff’s arguments about the relevance of Artur inviting Plaintiff onto the subject property to be unpersuasive. That goes to the issue of whether Defendants can state a claim against Artur, which the Court declines to address here, especially since that would be an argument for Artur to raise, not Plaintiff.

Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s opposition, Defendant THR California, LP filed its Answer on December 29, 2022, and Defendant THR Property Management LP filed its Answer just a few months ago on October 9, 2023. Both of these dates are much less than the two years Plaintiff claims in the opposition.

Finally, an even bigger issue here is that Defendant Invitation Homes still has not filed an Answer to the Complaint. The Court’s records contain no Answer from Defendant Invitation Homes. Accordingly, Invitation Homes technically does not even need permission from the Court to obtain leave to file a cross-complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.50, subd. (a).) Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Artur Ghazaryant.

The Court acknowledges that trial is only two months away at this point, which would be insufficient time for Defendants to serve Artur and conduct discovery. Thus, the Court will on its own motion advance and vacate the current trial and final status conference dates. The Court will discuss new trial related dates at the hearing on this motion.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Artur Ghazaryant.

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 23^rd day of January 2024