Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00004, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00004    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 12/14/22                                                      TRIAL DATE: 4/3/23

Case #21CHCV00004

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion filed on 8/5/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Impact Video Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Kenworth Sales Company dba Kenworth Sales Company Paclease dba Kenworth Northwest Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Kenworth Northwest Inc.

RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. 

On 1/4/21, Plaintiff Kenworth Sales Company dba Kenworth Sales Company Paclease dba Kenworth Northwest Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Impact Video Inc. dba Impact Audio Visual Incorporated (Defendant) for: (1) Open Book Account, (2) Account Stated, (3) Reasonable Value of Goods/Services Received, (4) Agreement and (5) Unjust Enrichment.  On 4/12/21, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint against Defendant alleging the same five causes of action.  On 6/1/21, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint. 

On 8/5/22, Defendant filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting Defendant leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.  Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. 

A cross-complaint against a plaintiff which alleges causes of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the complaint and existing at the time the answer is filed is a compulsory cross-complaint.  CCP 426.30(a); Al Holding Co. (1999) 75 CA4th 1310, 1313-1314; K.R.L. Partnership (2004) 120 CA4th 490, 498.  A party may seek leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint at any time before trial.  CCP 426.50.  Such a motion must be granted unless there is a substantial showing of bad faith by the moving party.  See Silver Organizations Ltd. (1990) 217 CA3d 94, 97-100.  Delay, alone, is insufficient reason to deny leave.  Id. at 101.   

Here, the claims in the cross-complaint arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint.  As such, the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory.  Defendant’s counsel explains that the delay in filing the cross-claims is due to settlement discussions between the parties, changes in counsel, etc.  (See Selth Decl.).

Since there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of Defendant and the cross-claims are compulsory, the motion is granted.  Defendant is ordered to separately file its cross-complaint which is attached to the motion as Exhibit A.