Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00250, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00250, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00250 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: SEC

SANTANDER VS EMMA REYES

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00250

HEARING:¿ 8/21/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

This is a habitability action. Defendant moves for leave to file a cross-complaint.

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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (b).)

Permissive Cross-Complaint

If a party fails to file a cross-complaint, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause within the time limits described above, must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50, subd. (c).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. (Ibid.)

Compulsory Cross-Complaint

Cross-claims against complainants arising from the same transaction or series thereof, existing at the time of filing an answer, are compulsory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a); Al Holding Co. v. O’Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313-14.)

Leave to file a cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith. (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) A determination that the petitioner acted in bad faith may be premised on “substantial injustice or prejudice” to the opposing party. (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v. Super. Ct. (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 902.)

Discussion

Here, Defendant does not state what causes of action she wants to assert in a cross-complaint. Thus, based on Defendant’s papers, the Court cannot know whether the proposed cross-complaint is permissive or compulsory.

Assuming Defendant’s cross-complaint is permissive, Defendant does not state if not filing the cross-complaint earlier was due to her oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or another reason.

But Defendant asserts that Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice because this case is still in its discovery stage. In opposition, Plaintiff states that Defendant has not filed and served a proposed cross-complaint.

The Court does not have enough information about why Defendant wants to file a cross-complaint or what the cross-complaint will assert. Thus, it cannot determine whether Defendant is acting in bad faith.

The motion is DENIED.