Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC06093, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC06093    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Arnold Castaneda’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

CROSS-COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300)      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a)                   OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005(b))            OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for motor vehicle negligence.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Grant Defendant leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff April Johnson for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. New information came to light after Plaintiffs’ discovery responses were served in April and May 2022.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 29, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of September 29, 2022. 

ANALYSIS:

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs Toyer McBride and April Johnson (“Plaintiff Johnson”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Arnold Castaneda (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on October 20, 2021. 

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint on August 9, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides:

“(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.

(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b).  Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.) Furthermore, “[a] party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.  This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50, emphasis added.)

The Court of Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. 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, 98–99.) “‘‘Bad faith,’ is defined as ‘[t]he opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving 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; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.  [Citation.]’  [Citations.]’  [Citation.]” (Id. at 100.)

Defendant’s Motion is brought on the grounds that defense counsel was retained in October 2021 and determined that a response had to be filed quickly, prior to investigation of the details of the motor vehicle accident. (Motion, Kramer Decl., ¶¶4-5.) Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiffs, to which responses were served in April and May 2022. (Id. at ¶5.) Following receipt of the discovery responses, defense counsel determined that a cross-complaint should be filed against the other driver, Plaintiff Johnson. The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief against Plaintiff Johnson. A copy of the proposed Cross-Complaint is attached to the Motion. (Id. at Exh. A.) This evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s request to file the Cross-Complaint is not made in bad faith and leave is appropriate.

Conclusion

Defendant Arnold Castaneda’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

CROSS-COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.