Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV26860, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV26860 Hearing Date: May 29, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Rosa Miriam Parada, Maria Fidelina Rafael Moreno, and Jose Amilcar Parada filed this action against Defendants John Doe, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On November 30, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendant City of Los Angeles without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On December 8, 2023, Metro filed an answer.
On March 12, 2025, Metro filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The motion was set for hearing on May 29, 2025. On April 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On May 21, 2025, Metro filed a reply.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Metro asks the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny the motion.
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 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.)
“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
A. The complaint
The complaint includes the following allegations:
On or about November 2, 2022, at S. Western Avenue and Wilshire Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90010, “Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and City of Los Angeles employee, Defendant John Doe, . . . negligently operated a vehicle at a specified location in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, Defendant John Doe caused those injuries while acting within the course and scope of Defendant John Doe’s employment with Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and City of Los Angeles.”
B. Metro’s motion
Metro asks for leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Rosa Miriam Parada (“Rosa Parada”) because Metro’s claims against Rosa Parada “arise from the same transaction and occurrence that support Plaintiffs’ personal injury claims, making Metro’s claims compulsory.” (Motion p. 3.) According to Metro, Rosa Parada illegally parked her vehicle in the red-curb bus zone, causing the incident giving rise to Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Rosa Parada opposes the motion, arguing Metro delayed in moving for leave to file a cross-complaint, failed to meet and confer, and is acting with questionable motives.
The Court finds that Rosa Parada has failed to show Metro acted in bad faith in seeking to file a cross-complaint and has failed to show that Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The Court orders Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to file and serve its cross-complaint within 10 days.
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.