Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV00383, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00383    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: R

The motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff sued defendants for their failure to pay rent.  (Possession is not at issue.)  Defendants seek to file a cross-complaint to allege a breach of the warranty of habitability and various other things, all of which arise out of the same transaction and occurrence as that in the complaint.  That makes this a compulsory cross-complaint.

There is great liberality in allowing leave to file compulsory cross-complaints.  Need, as long as the cross-complainant is acting in good faith, the motion must be granted to avoid a forfeiture.  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 426.50; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471.)  The court sees no bad faith here.  Plaintiff contends the contrary, though, suggesting that there has been a willful delay and defendants have not participated in discovery.  It may well be true that defendants have not participated in discovery, that does not mean that the cross-complaint is in bad faith.  Plaintiff also asserts bad faith because the cross-complaint mirrors many of the affirmative defenses.  But that is not bad faith.  To seek an affirmative recovery, defendants must bring a cross-complaint; an affirmative defense can result in no more than a denial of liability to plaintiff.  Plaintiff also contends that the allegations are not true.  That may be, but now is not the time to test the veracity of the allegations.  Plaintiff also claims that adding a new party is bad faith.  But that is hardly self-evident.

The bottom line is that in light of the liberality required when considering this sort of motion, the court believes it would be an abuse of discretion essentially to test the pleadings at this stage.  The motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has 30 days to answer or otherwise respond.