Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02264, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02264    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 7/9/24

Case #23CHCV02264

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion filed on 2/26/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hanna Margaret Eva Perlstein

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Zafar Neymatov

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendant Hanna Margaret Eva Perlstein leave to file a cross-complaint against Cadillac of Beverly Hills for: (1) Indemnification, (2) Apportionment of Fault and (3) Declaratory Relief.

RULING: 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a rear-end collision that occurred on 10/13/21 on the northbound Interstate 5 involving vehicles driven by Plaintiff Zafar Neymatov (Plaintiff) and Defendant Hanna Margaret Eva Perlstein (Defendant).

On 7/31/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence.  On 12/29/23, Defendant filed her answer to the complaint.  At the time Defendant filed the answer, Defendant was unaware of facts on which to base a cross-complaint.  After the answer to the complaint was filed, Defendant became aware that at the time off the accident, Plaintiff was driving a courtesy vehicle loaned to her by Cadillac of Beverly Hills (Cadillac) which had come to a complete and sudden stop in the middle of the interstate moments before the accident. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant seeks an order granting her leave to file a cross-complaint against Cadillac (currently not a party to the action) for: (1) Indemnification, (2) Apportionment of Fault and (3) Declaratory Relief.  Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. 

ANALYSIS

CCP 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.”

Since the proposed cross-complaint is not alleged against Plaintiff and a trial date has not been set, Defendant was not required to obtain leave of court to file the cross-complaint.  See CCP 428.50(b). 

Defendant’s citation to CCP 426.50 is misplaced.  The subject cross-complaint is not compulsory because the related cause of action is not being alleged against Plaintiff.  See CCP 426.30(a).

CONCLUSION

To the extent necessary, the motion is granted.  Defendant must separately file the cross-complaint.