Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC08264, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC08264 Hearing Date: March 7, 2023 Dept: 26
Figueroa v. Western Surety Co., et al.
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50)TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Western Surety
Company’s
Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint in Interpleader is GRANTED.
THE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS TO BE FILED
AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff
Misael Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) filed the
instant action for (1) Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil
Code § 1750 et seq; (2) Violation of California Business and Professions Code §
17200, et seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices; (3) Violation of Civil Code §1632;
(4) Claim Against Surety; and (5) Violation of Code of Civil Procedure
§§1281.97 and 1281.99, against HN Elite
Motors dba Luxe Motors (“Defendant Luxe Motors”) and Western Surety Company (“Defendant
Western Surety”).
Defendant Western
Surety filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint in
Interpleader on December 6, 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.) Furthermore a defendant may file a
cross-complaint in interpleader pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
386, subdivision (b).
Defendant Western Surety’s
Motion is brought on the grounds that it issued Motor Vehicle Dealership Bond
No. 63144538 (“the Bond”) in favor of Defendant Luxe Motors in the amount of
$50,000.00 on April 3, 2017. (Motion, Ahrendt Decl., ¶3 and Exh. 1.) In
addition to this action by Plaintiff seeking damages on the Bond, on July 18,
2022, another action was filed against Defendants Western Surety and Luxe
Motors seeking damages on the Bond: Aaron S. Griffin v. Hn Elite Motors,
et.al, Case No. 22STLC04737. Plaintiff’s claim is for $29,500.00 and
Griffin’s claim is for $14,500.00. (Motion, Lee Decl., ¶3.) A third claim was
made against the Bond in November 2022 in the amount of $17,500.00. (Id.
at ¶4.) Of the $50,000.00 Bond, only $31,500.00 remains as Defendant Western
Surety previously paid out a claim in November 2021. (Motion, Ahrendt Decl.,
¶¶4-5.) In that the remaining three claims total more than $61,500.00,
Defendant Western Surety does not know how to resolve the competing claims and
seeks leave to file a cross-complaint in interpleader and deposit the remaining
funds of the Bond with the Court.
This evidence and the
lack of any opposition demonstrates that Defendant Western Surety’s request to
file the Cross-Complaint is not made in bad faith and leave to file is
appropriate.
Conclusion
Defendant Western Surety
Company’s
Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint in Interpleader is GRANTED.
THE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS TO BE FILED
AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.