Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV21583, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21583    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 30

JASMINE WHITE vs LIQUORAMA MARKET, ENTITY STATUS UNKNOWN

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

TENTATIVE

The Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is Granted. Defendant may file and serve its Cross-Complaints in this action, naming therein TERRON DONNELL BROCK, DEVON JUANTEE ALLEN, and ROES 1 to 20, Inclusive as Cross-Defendants, Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

Section 426.50 is liberally construed in favor of granting a motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint which must be granted unless the moving party acts in bad faith. Here, the Court finds that Defendant did not act in bad faith. The information, specifically, the names of the individuals who were involved in the shooting, were unknown to Defendant at the time its answer was filed. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant did not act in bad faith when it failed to file a cross-complaint at the time of the answer. The Supreme Court of California stated that “these provisions authorize a defendant to file a cross-complaint against a person, not named in the original complaint, from whom he claims he is entitled to indemnity.” (American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 606.) Here, while the two cross-defendants were not named, it is clear that a party may file a cross-complaint against another party if claiming indemnity, which is what happened in this case.