Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV32858, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32858    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

            Plaintiff and Defendant Jose Alfredo Tolentino Ramirez were involved in an auto v. auto accident on August 10, 2022.  On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Ramirez and his employer and owner of the vehicle, Defendant National Construction Rentals, Inc. (“National”).  Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) Motor Vehicle; and (2) General Negligence.

            On October 4, 2024, Defendants Ramirez and National filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.  As of October 28, 2024, no opposition or reply has been filed. 

II.                LEGAL STANDARD

            “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 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 terms as may be just to the parties, leave . . . 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.”  (CCP §426.50.)

            “A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following: . . . (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).)

            Pursuant to CCP §428.50, “[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.”  (CCP §428.50(a).)  “Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.”  (CCP §428.50(b).)  “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.)

            “If the proposed cross-complaint is permissive . . ., leave of court may be granted ‘in the interest of justice’ at any time during the course of the action (CCP § 428.50(c)).  On the other hand, if the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory . . ., leave must be granted so long as defendant is acting in good faith (CCP § 426.50 . . .).”  (Weil & Brown, (Rutter Group 2024), Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 6:555.)

            “The declarations of defendant’s counsel should show that it would be ‘in the interest of justice’ to grant leave to file; and some reasonable excuse why the cross-complaint was not filed earlier (mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect . . . or most commonly, recent discovery of new facts).”  (Id. at ¶ 6:562.)

            A party seeking leave to file a cross-complaint must comply with CRC Rule.

III.             DISCUSSION

            A trial date has been set for January 27, 2025.  Defendants were therefore required to seek leave to file the proposed cross-complaint against third parties for equitable indemnification and contribution.

            Defendants allege that, on the day of the accident, Defendant Ramirez’s view was blocked by a van illegally parked on the red curb on Sunset Blvd thereby contributing to the accident with Plaintiff.  (You Dec., ¶3.)  Defendants’ proposed cross-complaint is brought against Cal State Plumbing Solutions, Inc.  (You Dec., Ex. B.)  Defendants maintain they have only recently ascertained this information.  (You Dec., ¶3.)

            The proposed cross-complaint arises from the same occurrence as Plaintiff’s underlying complaint.  Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the motion for leave to file cross-complaint.  There is no showing of prejudice if leave to file this proposed cross-complaint is granted. 

            Leave to file the proposed cross-complaint would be in the interests of justice.  Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint against Cal State Plumbing, Inc. is GRANTED. 

IV.             CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

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 31st day of October 2024