Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01487, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01487    Hearing Date: September 5, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Hernandez v. Los Angeles Country Club

CASE NO.:                23SMCV01487

MOTION:                  Motion for Leave to Amend to File Cross-Complaint

HEARING DATE:   9/5/2024

Legal Standard

Leave of court is required to file a compulsory cross-complaint when it is not filed before or at the same time as the answer. (CCP § 428.50(a), (c).) Where a party seeks leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint, whether due to oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, leave must be granted anytime during the course of litigation so long as the defendant acted in good faith. (CCP § 426.50.) Leave should be liberally granted to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. (Ibid.)  

“Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank¿(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) “[The] principle of liberality requires that a strong showing of bad faith be made in order to support a denial of the right to file a cross-complaint under this section.” (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 902.) To establish bad faith, the opposing party must show “actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake ..., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] ... not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather ... the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; ... [bad faith] contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.” (Id. at 100.) While the good faith requirement gives courts a “modicum of discretion,” the law strongly favors granting leave. (Sidney v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 718.) 

Analysis

Defendant moves for leave to file a cross-complaint against Living Colors Inc. Defendant presents a copy of their proposed Cross-Complaint for indemnity. (Bates Decl., Ex. “A”.) This case arises from an alleged slip-and-fall. Plaintiff Felipe Hernandez alleges that the fall occurred while he was working for Living Colors Inc., a subcontractor of Matt Construction, a general contractor who was performing work at the Subject Property. Recently, on May 23, 2024, Everest Premier Insurance Company, administered by American Claims Management, workers’ compensation carrier for Living Colors, filed a lien in the present action. Counsel provides that new information came to light during the exchange of discovery, which highlighted a need for Defendants to file a cross-complaint against Living Colors in order to protect their interests in this litigation. (Bates Decl., ¶ 5.) The Court observes no bad faith on the record. Accordingly, the motion for leave is GRANTED.

Defendant to file the proposed cross-complaint within five days.

In light of the cross-complaint, the Court also vacates the November 18, 2024, trial date and sets a trial setting conference for November 18, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  All dates will run from the new trial date.  The October 1, 2024, motion for new trial is taken off calendar as moot.