Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV43214, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43214    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 55

RADOSEVICH v. LOS FELIZ BLISS, LLC                                            20STCV43214

Hearing Date:  8/12/22,  Dept. 55

#9:   MOTION GRANTING MZL PROPERTIES, INC. LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST LOS FELIZ BLISS, LLC.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Cross-Defendant MZL PROPERTIES INC.

RP:  Defendant/Cross-Complainant LOS FELIZ BLIZZ, LLC

Summary

On 11/12/20, Plaintiff MATTHEW SMITH RADOSEVICH filed a Complaint alleging:   Plaintiff leased 4646 Los Feliz Boulevard, apartment 312, Los Angeles, owned by Defendant LOS FELIZ BLISS LLC, and initially managed by Defendant SUREN SINGH doing business as MONDIAL PROPERTIES, including Addendum #3 providing for $8,220.00 rent paid through January 31, 2021.  In or about May 2020, the owner, and successor manager APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LLC  (AMC) changed the locks on the apartment, to prevent Plaintiff’s reentry, and also disposed of his personal property.

The causes of action are:

(1) FRAUD

(2) BREACH OF CONTRACT

(3) CONVERSION

(4) MONEY RECEIVED

(5) BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

(6) BREACH OF COVENANT AND RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT

(7) NEGLIGENCE

(8) WRONGFUL EVICTION.

On 1/20/22, Defendant APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint against Defendant LOS FELIZ BLISS, LLC., having causes of action for (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT (CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION) and (2) DECLARATORY RELIEF.

On 3/3/22, LOS FELIZ served a cross-complaint against defendants MZL PROPERTIES INC, SUREN SINGH and MONDIAL PROPERTIES, having causes of action for (1) Equitable Indemnity, (2) Partial Equitable Indemnity, (3) Contribution and Equitable Apportionment, (4) Declaratory Relief, and (5) Implied Equitable Indemnity.

On 7/19/22, Defendant/Cross-Defendant MZL PROPERTIES INC. filed a motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint against LOS FELIZ, for breach of a Management Agreement’s indemnity and hold harmless provisions.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order granting leave to file a proposed Cross-Complaint against Cross-Complainant LOS FELIZ BLISS, LLC, stating a cause of action for breach of written contract, on bases including the following:

·         When responding to LOS FELIZ 's discovery requests, moving counsel realized that Cross-Defendant MZL PROPERTIES INC. has a viable cause of action against LOS FELIZ, for breach of a written agreement.

·         Counsel then promptly prepared the cross-complaint.

·         MZL' s Management Agreement’s indemnity and hold harmless provisions would protect MZL from any potential liability, in the absence of "willful misconduct or negligence" on its part.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying the motion, on grounds including the following:

·         MZL unreasonably delayed and failed to timely file a cross-complaint at the time of answering Los Feliz Bliss’ cross-complaint.  Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 863–64.

·         Under Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50(b), the cross-complaint was due before or after April 15, 2022 – the date MZL filed its answer to Los Feliz Bliss’ cross-complaint.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted.

The proposed Cross-Complaint may be served and filed, as a separate document, within 10 days.

The Court finds that the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory as against another cross-complaint, and is unconnected with any bad faith, but instead counsel’s analysis of a potential indemnity claim, while preparing discovery responses.

Cross-claims against complainants, arising from the same transaction or series thereof, existing at the time of filing an answer, are compulsory.  E.g., CCP §426.30(a);  Al Holding Co. v. O’Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4^th 1310, 1313-14.  

Leave to file compulsory cross-complaints must be granted where moving parties acted in good faith.  CCP §426.50; Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.  In reviewing a denial of leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint, appellate courts review the entire record for any substantial evidence of bad faith, defined as, “dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, sinister motive, furtive design or ill will.”  Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 100.  In contrast, judges have discretion to deny leave to file permissive cross-complaints, including based upon  a finding of unexplained delay, depending upon the interests of justice.   Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 852, 864;  CCP §428.50(c).  

Cross-complaints for indemnity are virtually always related to the main action.  Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.