Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV37471, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV37471 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff Carlos Montalva (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., Unix Packaging, LLC (“Unix”), and Does 1-20 for negligence and premises liability.
On January 12, 2023, Defendants J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (erroneously sued as J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.) (“Hunt”) filed an answer.
On September 25, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to permit the filing of a first amended complaint.
On December 1, 2023, Unix filed an answer to the first amended complaint. On December 4, 2023, Hunt filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On October 11, 2024, Unix filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The motion was set for hearing on November 21, 2024. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is current scheduled for March 5, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Unix asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint.
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
Unix asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against South Bay Safety, Inc., also operating under the name Selective Personnel, Inc. dba SPI for equitable indemnity, implied indemnity, express indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
The Court has no information suggesting that Unix has filed its motion in bad faith. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Unix Packaging, LLC’s motion to file a cross-complaint. The Court orders Defendant Unix Packaging, LLC 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.