Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV26017, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26017    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present action against Defendants, including Defendant Randy Smith. Defendant Randy Smith filed his answer on August 26, 2024. Defendant Randy Smith now moves for leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution against co-defendant Miguel Sanchez. Defendant Sanchez and Plaintiff opposes.

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).) 

The proposed cross-complaint is mandatory when it arises out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim. The court must grant leave to file the mandatory cross-complaint absent bad faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50, Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) 

Any party who failed to bring a compulsory cross-complaint, “whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause,” may apply for leave to file a cross-complaint, and as long as the party acted in “good faith,” the court must grant leave. (§ 426.50.) This mandatory standard applies regardless of factors such as surprise or undue burden. (See Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99 [section 426.50 leave was mandatory, not discretionary, even when requested only five days before trial].) 

Although Defendant’s motion was made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 428.50, based on the allegations in the proposed cross-complaint and the facts alleged, it should properly be considered a motion for leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint. The cross-complaint arises from the same transaction as Plaintiff’s claim, specifically involving a third vehicle in the car collision. As the court in Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes/All American Develop. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38 stated, “Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.”

Based on both the moving and opposing papers, there is no indication of bad faith. Defendant Randy Smith filed his answer on August 26, 2024, but did not immediately move to file a cross-complaint, instead waiting until January 27, 2025, to file the present motion. This delay is consistent with defense counsel’s contention of inadvertence, and case law does not support denying a mandatory cross-complaint on that basis. (See Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99 [holding that leave under § 426.50 was mandatory, not discretionary, even when requested only five days before trial].) Furthermore, a copy of the cross complaint is attached to the moving papers.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, and Defendant Smith is ordered to serve the cross-complaint within 20 days of today. The Court notes that trial is currently set for April 22, 2025. Given that this case was filed on October 24, 2023, the Court will continue the trial date to June ___, 2025, and the Final Status Conference to June ___, 2025. All trial related deadline is to follow the new trial date.

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.