Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV04291, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV04291 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Jesus Sandoval, Reyna Yepez, Juan Rosas, Mia Sandoval, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Reyna Yepez, and Leo Sandoval, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Reyna Yepez, filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Sean L. Williams (“Williams”), and Does 1-20 for negligence.
On August 18, 2022, the City filed an answer.
On January 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata saying the true name of the Plaintiff listed in the complaint as Leo Sandoval is Lea Sandoval.
On May 19, 2023, Williams filed an answer.
On January 8, 2024, the City and Williams (“Defendants”) filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint to be heard on April 5, 2024. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 28, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUEST
Defendants ask for leave to file a cross-complaint against Jesus Sandoval for indemnity, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.
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.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint alleges that on February 9, 2021, Williams negligently drove his vehicle into Plaintiffs’ vehicle, injuring Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, Williams was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the City’s police department when the accident occurred.
B. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint
Defendants argue that Plaintiff Jesus Sandoval (“Sandoval”), who was driving Plaintiffs’ vehicle when the accident occurred, caused the accident by making “a sudden left turn directly into [Williams’] path . . . .” Therefore, Defendants assert, Sandoval should be required to indemnify the City for any amounts it pays as the result of Sandoval’s negligence.
C. Ruling
Despite Defendants’ delay in seeking leave to file a cross-complaint, the Court is not aware of any evidence showing a lack of good faith. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) Liberally construing the statute to avoid forfeiture of a cause of action (see ibid.), the Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants City of Los Angeles and Sean L. Williams for leave to file a cross-complaint. The Court orders Defendants City of Los Angeles and Sean L. Williams to file and serve the cross-complaint within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.