Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV16566, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV16566 Hearing Date: January 3, 2025 Dept: 28
Having
considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff Daniel Neman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants La Mesa Restaurant and Lounge and Does 1-50 for general negligence and intentional tort.
On July 22, 2022, Defendant 1430 N. Cahuenga Partners, L.P., dba La Mesa Restaurant and Lounge (“La Mesa”) filed an answer.
On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Power House Security (“Power”) as Doe 1.
On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Power House Security LLC (“Power LLC”) as Doe 2.
On October 23, 2024, the clerk entered Power LLC’s default.
On October 28, 2024, La Mesa filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The motion was set for hearing on January 3, 2025. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is current scheduled for May 12, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
La Mesa asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against Power LLC.
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
La Mesa asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against Power LLC for express indemnity, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, breach of contract, contribution, and declaratory relief. La Mesa has attached a copy of the proposed cross-complaint to its motion.
The cross-complaint is transactionally related to the main action. The Court has no information suggesting that La Mesa has filed its motion in bad faith. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
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.