Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV11502, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11502    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Valadez Vallejo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants TLC Laundry, LLC, James Lee Carson, Crocker Holdings Group LLC, California Coin Laundries, and Does 1-50 for negligence and premises liability.  On February 20, 2024, the Court dismissed California Coin Laundries without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On August 11, 2023, Defendant Jameswood Holdings, LLC, erroneously sued as Crocker Holdings (“Jameswood”), filed an answer. 

On August 14, 2023, Defendant James Lee Carson dba TLC Laundry, erroneously sued as TLC Laundry, LLC (“Carson”), filed an answer. 

On September 25, 2023, Jameswood filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint to be heard on November 15, 2023.  On November 15, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to February 22, 2024 and ordered Jameswood to serve the motion on Carson.  On February 7, 2024, Carson filed an opposition to the motion. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 13, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Jameswood requests leave to file a cross-complaint against Carson.

Carson asks the Court to deny the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30 provides: 

“(a) 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. 

“(b) This section does not apply if either of the following are established: 

“(1) The court in which the action is pending does not have jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the person who failed to plead the related cause of action. 

“(2) The person who failed to plead the related cause of action did not file an answer to the complaint against him.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30.) 

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 Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) 

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 the following: 

On or about April 17, 2020 at approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff was sitting on a bench located on Defendants’ premises located at 1901 West Bardillo Street, West Covina, California 91790 when the improperly secured bench lifted over, causing her to fall and hit her head on a metal rod. 

Defendants knew or should have known through reasonable inspection and monitoring that the bench was not secured, created a dangerous condition, and posted a serious risk of injury to Plaintiff.  Defendants did not take corrective action or warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition. 

Defendants have a non-delegable duty to provide a safe place for visitors and patrons, to inspect the premises, and to discover and correct any dangerous conditions. Defendants breached these duties by allowing Plaintiff to be injured when the improperly secured bench she was sitting on lifted over and caused her to fall over and hit her head. 

As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered injuries. 

B.   Jameswood’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint against Carson 

Jameswood’s proposed cross-complainant alleges that Carson is obligated under a lease agreement to indemnify and defend Jameswood in Plaintiff’s action.  However, Carson has refused to perform its defense obligations under the lease agreement. The proposed cross-complaint asserts claims for express indemnity, total implied indemnity, partial implied indemnity, and declaratory relief. 

In support of Jameswood’s motion for leave to file the proposed cross-complaint, its counsel submitted a declaration stating that when Jameswood filed its answer, Carson had not yet responded to Jameswood’s tender of defense.  After Jameswood filed the answer, Carson denied the tender of defense.  (Kang Dec. ¶ 6.) 

C.      Carson’s opposition 

Carson asks the Court to deny the motion because the cross-complaint is subject to demur.  According to Carson, the contract on which claims in the cross-complaint are based does not establish a contractual relationship between Jameswood and Carson.  Carson also argues that Jameswood’s delay in serving the motion on Carson prejudices Carson because trial is currently scheduled for May 13, 2024 and Carson would not have time to file a dispositive motion. 

D.      Ruling 

The Court grants Jameswood’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint in the interest of justice.  Jameswood’s counsel’s inadvertent failure to file a cross-complaint along with the answer and later failure to serve the motion on Jameswood should not prevent Jameswood from asserting its claims against Carson.  Carson may seek a trial continuance if needed. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint filed by Defendant Jameswood Holdings, LLC, erroneously sued as Crocker Holdings.  Defendant Jameswood Holdings, LLC is ordered to file and serve the cross-complaint within 30 days of the hearing on this 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.