Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV17500, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17500    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 61

KCS WEST, INC. vs WHISKY HOTEL LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

TENTATIVE

Cross-Defendant Golden State Glazing, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Cross-Complaint is ordered filed within five (5) days of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

ANALYSIS

“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. Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(a)–(b).) A cross-complaint filed outside either of the aforementioned times requires leave of court, which may be granted “in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c).)

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.) Leave to file a cross-complaint may also be granted “in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50, subd. (c).)

Cross-Defendant Golden State Glazing, Inc. (Golden) seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Defendant and Cross-Complainant Whisky Hotel, LLC (Whisky). The proposed cross-complaint alleges four causes of action for negligence per se, negligent failure to procure adequate insurance, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment, based on Whisky’s alleged failure to procure liability insurance that would have defended Golden from the cross-claims of Plaintiff, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant KCS West in this action. (Motion Exh. A.)

Golden was served with KCS’s cross-complaint on March 15, 2024, and its insurer issued denial letters on June 6 and August 20, 2024. (Kozdrey Decl. ¶¶ 3–7.) Golden filed an answer on July 25, 2024, without filing a cross-complaint, necessitating the present motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Golden argues that if leave to file is not granted, it could file an independent lawsuit and seek to have the matters related and consolidated. (Motion at p. 3.)

Whisky in opposition argues that Golden indicated in its answer that it was aware of the insurance issues, and should have filed its cross-complaint when it filed its answer. (Opposition at pp. 5–6.) Whisky also argues that it would be preferable to have Golden’s claims related to Whisky’s contractual duty to obtain insurance tried in a separate action, as to permit such claims in the present litigation, already involving multiple defendants and cross-defendants, and issues of payment and negligence in the performance of construction contracts, would only cause procedural delay and jury confusion. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.)

Leave to file is properly granted here. Although Golden had reason to know of its insurance-related claims when it filed its answer, its delay in seeking leave is not so great as to conclude that the introduction of its insurance-related claims would not be in the interest of justice. Nor is there reason to conclude that the introduction of these claims would cause delay or confusion to the trier of fact, as such confusion or delay could be addressed by appropriate orders regarding the sequencing of trial.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.