Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC01920, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC01920    Hearing Date: July 1, 2024    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Laba, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Eleanna Laba and Elias Laba’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. THE PROPOSED CROSS-COMPLAINT IS TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Eleanna Laba and Elias Laba (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an answer on April 29, 2024. 

Defendants filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint on May 30, 2024. 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.)

Defendants’ Motion is brought on the grounds that defense counsel inadvertently failed to file a cross-complaint at the time the answer was filed. (Motion, Chang Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Defense counsel did not realize an unnamed third party was involved in the subject motor vehicle accident, who was not named in the Complaint, Taylor Alexandria Williams (“Williams”). (Ibid.) Upon realizing Williams’ involvment, defense counsel prepared the instant Motion, seeking leave to file a cross-complaint against Williams for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. (Id. at Exh. C.) The proposed Cross-Complaint is attached to the supporting declaration of defense counsel and no opposition is made to the request. (Ibid.) Therefore, the request for leave to file the proposed cross-complaint is granted.

Conclusion

Defendants Eleanna Laba and Elias Laba’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. THE PROPOSED CROSS-COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.