Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV18921, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18921    Hearing Date: January 6, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Moving Party:          Defendant California’s Favorite C-Store Company

Resp. Party:            None

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs Elisa Garcia and Dionne Orellana filed their Complaint against Defendants California’s Favorite C-Store Company and Michael S. Sy on causes of action regarding Plaintiffs former employment with Defendants.

On October 4, 2021, Defendants filed their respective Answers.

On November 5, 2021, the Court scheduled Trial for October 17, 2022.

On July 8, 2022, by request of the Parties, the Court ordered the Parties to attend a Mandatory Settlement Conference, to be conducted by Resolve Law LA Virtual MSC Program. The Court also rescheduled Trial for January 23, 2023.

On October 17, 2022, the Parties filed their Joint Status Conference Statement, which notified the Court that the Parties had attended the Resolve Law LA Settlement Conference on September 29, 2022.

On November 29, 2022, the Court ordered the Parties’ respective Counsel to each pay sanctions of $100.00 for failure to file a joint status conference report as previously ordered. Trial remains as previously scheduled.

On December 12, 2022, Defendant California’s Favorite C-Store (“Defendant”) filed its Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint against Proposed Cross-Defendants 7-Eleven and Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

No opposition or other filing has been filed regarding the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (b) requires a party to file a cross-complaint before the court has set a date for trial.  If a party seeks to file a cross-complaint after such time has passed, that party must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).) 

Leave should be granted “in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Ibid.) “Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court’s discretion.” (Crocker National Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)

II.        Discussion

Defendant moves the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint on Proposed Cross-Defendants 7-Eleven, Inc. and Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (Motion, p. 1:22–26.) Defendant argues that this would be appropriate because Defendant has no culpability in this matter, Proposed Cross-Defendants bear the entirety of the fault in this matter, and justice would be served by Proposed Cross-Defendants inclusion in this action. (Id. at p. 3:19–26.) Defendant claims that this Motion “was not pleaded earlier as a result of inadvertence”. (Id. at p. 2:1–3.)

No party has filed an opposition or other response regarding the Motion.

This case was filed more than 18 months ago, on May 20, 2021.  Trial in this case is scheduled for January 23, 2023, which is less than three weeks away. Inadvertence is not a sufficient excuse here, where Trial has already been continued once before. Moreover, Defendant’s fundamental rights would not be harmed by denial of Defendant’s permissive Cross-Complaint, as Defendants could file a new action against their Proposed Cross-Defendants in the event that Defendant does not prevail at Trial.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint.

III.     Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is DENIED.