Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05737, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05737    Hearing Date: March 21, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Ones v. Stone Roofing Co. Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV05737

MOTION:                  Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

HEARING DATE:   3/21/2025

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. (Id.)

“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

Defendants Stone Roofing Co. Inc, Western Pacific Roofing Corp., Liberated L&E LLC, and Juan Gutierrez move for leave to file a proposed Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff Evelio Garcia Ones and Arlie Landigin Bauzon. The Cross-Complaint alleges three causes of action for equitable indemnification, equitable contribution, and declaratory relief.

Defendants demonstrate good cause for leave to file the proposed cross-complaint. Defendants made a reasonable and good faith investigation into the cause of the collision before bringing this proposed indemnification action. Defendants explain that this action arises from a December 15, 2021, multi-car collision on the westbound I-10 Freeway. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action. Plaintiff alleges that Gutierrez was driving directly behind Plaintiff and rear-ended him as Plaintiff came to a stop. No other parties were named in the complaint. Defendants answered Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 15, 2024, and thereafter began investigating Plaintiff’s claims. (Kirwin Decl. ¶ 3.) During the investigation, Defendants reviewed the police report for the accident and obtained a recorded statement from an eyewitness, who indicated the accident began when Arlie Bauzon cut in front of a line of cars and slammed on his breaks, causing Plaintiff and the witness to slam on their brakes and thus contributing to the collision. (Kirwin Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendants requested that Plaintiff stipulate to allow them to file the Cross-Complaint on October 28, 2024. (Kirwin Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to counsel’s requests in November, January and February. (Id.)

Plaintiff asserts undue delay in bringing this motion despite having knowledge of the facts for “over a year.” Plaintiff shows no substantial or bad faith delay. The record does not indicate that Defendants had knowledge of the underlying facts for “over a year.” To the contrary, Defendants discovered the facts, including the police report and eyewitness statement, from an investigation which took place after Defendants answered on February 15, 2024. Defendants first proposed a cross-complaint on October 28, 2024—merely 8 months later. Plaintiff contributed to the delay in bringing the instant motion by failing to respond to Defendants’ request to stipulate to its filing. The record demonstrates that Defendants’ motion was brought in good faith.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.