Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01054, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01054    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: C

Leslie J. Hanslikdink vs Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles, Santa Fe Springs, et al

Case No.: 23NWCV01054

Hearing Date: March 19, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

#9

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles, Santa Fe Springs; Grand Design RV, LLC; and  Bank of the West’s Motion for Leave for File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

Defendants to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action.

Plaintiff filed the action on April 6, 2023, for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act due to the purchase of a 2022 Grand Design Momentum on January 3, 2023.

On February 14, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint.

As of March 15, 2024, no opposition has been filed to this motion.

Legal Standard

C.C.P. §426.30(a) provides, as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.”

C.C.P. §426.50 provides, as follows:

“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.”

C.C.P. §428.50 provides, as follows:

(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.

A cross-complaint is compulsory if it is transactionally related to the subject matter of the complaint. (C.C.P. §426.10.) “To be considered a compulsory cross-complaint, a related cause of action must have existed at the time of the service of [the] answer to [the] complaint.” (Crocker National Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) The late filing of a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint “absent some evidence of bad faith is insufficient evidence to support denial of the motion.” (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 101.) “Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court’s discretion.” (Crocker at 864.)

Discussion

Defendants’ proposed cross-complaint is a compulsory cross-complaint. The cross-complaint arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as the causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint.  The Complaint alleges that the trailer was delivered with material defects and nonconformities including a malfunctioning generator. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Defendants allege the manufacturer of the generator is Cummins, Inc. As such, Defendants in this action have indemnity and contribution claims against Cummins, Inc. that all arise out of Plaintiff's purchase of the trailer. These causes of action existed at the time Defendant filed its answer. (CCP § 426.10.)

In the proposed cross-complaint, Defendant asserts the following causes of action against Cross-Defendant Cummins, Inc.: (1) Equitable Indemnity and (2) Contribution.

As this motion is unopposed, Plaintiff submits no evidence of prejudice or bad faith. While Defendants’ counsel did delay in filing a motion attaching the proposed cross-complaint, such a delay is not evidence of bad faith. Moreover, as discussed above, the late filing of a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint “absent some evidence of bad faith is insufficient evidence to support denial of the motion.” (Silver Organizations, Ltd. at 101.) Any prejudice to Plaintiff can be mitigated by a trial continuance.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED.