Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00018, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00018    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: A

23CMCV00018 Lathasha James v. City of Los Angeles

Thursday, December 14, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST CITY OF LOS ANGELES

I.        BACKGROUND

      The complaint alleges claims for premises liability and negligence arising from injuries sustained by Plaintiff when she fell because of an allegedly dangerous condition. The City of Los Angeles (“City”) filed a cross-complaint against Roes for indemnity, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.

      Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) moves for an order granting leave to file a cross-complaint against Defendant City. Although Metro filed its answer on July 13, 2023, Metro did not file a cross-complaint because its investigation had not yet commenced, and it was required to comply with claims presentation requirements under the Government Tort Claims Act. After receiving Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery, Metro obtained additional information to evaluate the incident. Metro will assert claims for indemnity declaratory relief, contribution, and apportionment of fault.

      Metro timely served Defendant City with this motion on November 14, 2023, by electronic transmission. City did not file an opposition by December 1, 2023, (nine court days before the hearing). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd. (b).)

II.      DISCUSSION

      A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either a cause of action against any of the parties who filed the complaint, or any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable, whether such person is already a party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10 (b)). Leave to file or amend a cross-complaint may be granted so long as the moving party acted in good faith. The statute is liberally construed to avoid forfeiture. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50).

      Metro acted in good faith in not filing the cross-complaint at the time of its answer as it could not do so prior to complying with the Government Code’s requirements for presenting a claim. (Gov. Code, § 945.6.) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Metro is ordered to file its cross-complaint forthwith.