Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04539, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV04539 Hearing Date: November 19, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Chen, et al.,
v. City of Santa Monica
CASE NO.: 23SMCV04539
MOTION: Motion
for Leave to Amend to File Cross-Complaint
HEARING DATE: 11/19/24
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 the City of Santa Monica
moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint against 1749 12th Street Homeowners
Association (HOA).
Plaintiffs James Chen and Michael
Spragg’s complaint alleges that their condominium unit was damaged as a result
of sewage water overflowing into their home. Plaintiffs allege the City
mismanaged the sewage and drainage system, resulting in the sewage water back
up into Plaintiffs’ home. Defendant City explains that following filing the
answer in this matter, on September 5, 2024, the City conducted an inspection
of the Plaintiffs pipes believed to be owned, operated, and/or managed by the
HOA. Defendant contends that the inspection revealed that not all the required
backwater valves were present, and/or functioning properly, and/or inspected
and/or maintained regularly, and/or were not properly installed in areas in the
subject building due to the failure to obtain required permits. The City
believes that the HOA contributed to the sewage backup described in Plaintiffs’
complaint by failing to install or require installation of backwater valves at
the property. Therefore, the City seeks indemnity and contribution against the
HOA. The City provides a copy of the proposed cross-complaint.
The current trial date is June 30,
2025, which is several months away. No depositions have taken place. There is
no known prejudice that will result from allowing the City to bring the HOA
into the case.
Accordingly,
the motion is GRANTED. The proposed cross-complaint
shall be filed within 2 days.