Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV02721, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02721 Hearing Date: March 5, 2025 Dept: 28
Having
considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff John Tapang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Daifuku Co., Ltd., Logen Tfleflex, Daifuku America Corporation, Jervis B. Webb Company (“Webb”), Daifuku North America Holding Company, Daifuku U.S.A., Inc., Flite Line Services, Daifuku Airport Technologies, Daifuku Webb Holding Company, Wynright Corporation, Spirit Lines, Inc., and Does 1-100 for strict products liability, negligent products liability, and negligence.
On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Webb and Does 1-100 for strict products liability, negligent products liability, and negligence.
On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Webb, Spirit Lines, Inc., and Does 1-100 for strict products liability, negligent products liability, and negligence.
On March 29, 2023, Webb filed an answer.
On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to change Defendant Spirit Lines, Inc.’s name to the correct name Spirit Airlines, Inc. On July 10, 2023, Defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc. (“Spirit”) filed an answer.
On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Tom Bradley International Terminal Equipment Company (“TBITEC”) as Doe 1.
On July 11, 2023, Spirit removed the case to federal court. On August 10, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
On August 11, 2023, the Court dismissed Spirit with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On September 15, 2023, TBITEC filed an answer.
On October 31, 2024, TBITEC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants John Bean Technologies Corporation, JBT Aerotech Airport Services, and Roes 1-25 for express indemnity, equitable (implied) indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On December 11, 2024, Cross-Defendant Oshkosh Aerotech, LLC, improperly sued and served as John Bean Technologies Corporation and JBT Aerotech Airport Services, filed an answer to TBITEC’s cross-complaint.
On January 16, 2025, Webb filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Brock Solutions US Systems, LLC. The motion was set for hearing on March 5, 2025. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 23, 2026.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Webb asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against Brock Solutions US Systems, LLC (“Brock”).
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 provides:
“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 of Civil Procedure section 428.10 provides:
“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:
“(a) Any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes the filing of a cross-complaint against the plaintiff in an action commenced under Title 7 (commencing with Section 1230.010) of Part 3.
“(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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides:
“(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 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 Org. Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) “Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.” (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes/All American Development Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.)
DISCUSSION
Webb asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against Brock for express contractual indemnification, equitable implied indemnification, contribution, breach of contract, and declaratory relief. Webb has attached a copy of the proposed cross-complaint.
The cross-complaint is transactionally related to the main action. The Court has no information suggesting that Webb has filed its motion in bad faith. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jervis B. Webb Company’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Brock Solutions US Systems, LLC. The Court orders Defendant Jervis B. Webb Company to file and serve the cross-complaint within 30 days of the hearing on this motion. (The Court does not deem filed the proposed cross-complaint attached to the motion.)
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.