Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV28302, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV28302, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28302 Hearing Date: November 9, 2023 Dept: 30

IRMEH MANOUKI-MASSIHI, et al. vs CITY OF COMMERCE, et al.

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to file and serve the proposed cross-complaint attached as Exhibit A to the proposed order within 10 days of the hearing on this motion. Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to file a cross-complaint for equitable contribution, implied indemnity and declaratory relief against Southern California Edison Company, Kafil Construction, Bruce Johan Kafil, Lotus LA, LLC and Roes 1 to 50. On June 28, 2023, defense counsel for City of Commerce learned of evidence of potential comparative negligence on the part of the proposed cross-defendants. (Barber Decl., ¶ 4.) In response to Southern California Edison Company's request for production (set one), on March 22, 2023 defendant Kafil Construction produced an incident report signed by Johan Kafil dated January 24, 2022. The contents of that signed statement suggests potential comparative negligence on the part of Southern California Edison Company, Kafil Construction, Bruce Johan Kafil, Lotus LA, LLC and Roes I to 50. (Barber Decl., Exh. B.) The City was not provided with the signed incident report when the other parties were, even though the City was a party in the case and should have been on Kafil Constructions proof of service list. (Id., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that the cross-complaint is compulsory because it arises out of the same occurrence, namely, the slip and fall at issue in this case. “Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.” (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.) Thus, there must be substantial evidence that Defendant acted in bad faith to justify a denial of the motion to file a cross-complaint.

No party has opposed this motion, and thus have not produced any argument or evidence of bad faith.