SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Lisa Steinmetz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles and City of Calabasas for injuries related to a fall. Plaintiff alleges she was riding a bicycle on Valmar Road when her bicycle slid on water and algae in the street, causing Plaintiff to fall and suffer injury.  

The City of Calabasas filed a cross-complaint against the City of Los Angeles Cleanstreet Inc. 

The City of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against the City of Calabasas, Cleanstreets (Roe 1), County of Los Angeles (Roe 2), Sedaghati, Shaban Trust (Roe 3), M.D. CO Tr Mottahedeh Trust (Roe 4), and Greater Mulwood HOA (as Roe 5). 

M.D. CO Tr Mottahedeh Trust filed a cross-complaint against the City of Los Angeles 

At this time, Cross-Defendant Cleanstreet Inc. (“Cleanstreet”) seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Shaban Sedaghati and Tamara Sedaghati Revocable Trust Dated January 4, 2017, Erroneously Sued And Served As Sedaghati, Shaban Trust (Roe 3) and M.D. CO Tr Mottahedeh Trust (Roe 4) for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.  

Any opposition to the motion was due on or before October 5, 2023; none have been filed.  

 

II. Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint  

A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint.  (CCP §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.)  Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date.  (CCP §428.50(b).)    

If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint.  (CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).)  Leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith. (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)  Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice. (CCP §428.50(c).) Where the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint so long as defendant is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) 

On December 21, 2021 and August 5, 2022, Cleanstreet filed its Answers to the City of Los Angeles’ and City of Calabasas’ cross-complaint. On February 6, 2023, the City of Los Angeles filed amendments to its cross-complaint to Roe in Sedaghati, Shaban Trust and M.D. CO Tr Mottahedeh Trust.  

Here, Cleanstreet contend that the complaint and the proposed cross-complaint arise from the same incident. Cleanstreet also avers it did not previously file a cross-complaint, because it did not know of these cross-defendants at the time until the City of Los Angeles identified these parties by filing Roe amendments. No parties oppose the motion. Furthermore, trial is currently set for March 14, 2024. With the current trial date, there is sufficient time to complete discovery, and the Court finds leave to file the proposed cross-complaint would be in the interest of justice with no identifiable prejudice.  

 The motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is therefore GRANTED. Cleanstreet is ordered to file its proposed cross-complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.