Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05500, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05500    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Tagtow, v. Rabanny, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV05500

MOTION:                  Motion for Leave to Amend to File  

HEARING DATE:   3/25/2025

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

Cross-Defendant Wilson Hansen moves for leave to file a proposed Cross-Complaint (Mann Decl., Ex. A) against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Farzad Rabbany. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action against Rabbany for Tortious Breach of The Implied Warranty of Habitability, Statutory Breach of The Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligence, Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision, Private Nuisance, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Unfair Competition, Fraud, and Violation Of Civil Code § 1950.5.  These causes of action arise out of the same tenancy/habitability issues presented by the Cross-Complaint and Complaint. Thus, the Cross-Complaint is compulsory.

The Court observes no prejudice to Rabbany or indicia of bad faith on Hansen’s part. The Court notes some minor delay in presenting the pleading. Cross-Defendant filed his answer to the cross-complaint on July 24, 2024. As a compulsory cross-complaint, the pleading should have been filed at this juncture. Cross-Defendant waited approximately six months before proceeding with this motion. At worst, this shows an approximate six-month delay in bringing this cross-complaint. This is insubstantial. Plaintiff can identify no prejudice from this delay, such as the loss of critical evidence. The trial in this action has not yet been scheduled. The parties have not conducted depositions. Rabbany would have sufficient time to conduct discovery on the cross-complaint before trial.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.