Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV35861, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35861    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

OLMES EDMUNDO ARIAS, ET AL., 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

DEVIN RUDY ESPINOSA, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV35861 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

May 30, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On September 29, 2021, plaintiffs A. Olmes Edmundo Arias (“Arias”), Melida Viera, and Camila Arias, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Melida Viera (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Devin Rudy Espinosa, Rury Espinoza, and Does 1-25 for damages arising a motor vehicle collision.  

Devin Rudy Espinosa and Rury Espinoza (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint on February 2, 2022. Trial is currently set for September 26, 2024.  

Defendants now seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Arias for comparative indemnity and declaratory relief. Defendants argue they were not certain of Plaintiff Arias’ liability and comparative fault in the incident until after discovery with witnesses and the accident investigation with their accident reconstructionist expert. Defendants therefore seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Arias for failure to yield to oncoming traffic, asserting that he is comparatively at fault for the motor vehicle collision. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 

 

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT  

  1. Legal Standard 

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).)  A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. (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).) Further, 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.) Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50 supplements the authority provided generally to amend pleadings.  

  1. Discussion 

Here, Defendant’s proposed cross-complaint against Plaintiff is compulsory because it is against the party who brought the original complaint, and arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions as the cause of which Plaintiffs allege in their complaint. (K.R.L. P'ship v. Superior Ct. (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 490, 498.) Leave to file compulsory cross-complaints must be granted where moving parties acted in good faith. (CCP §426.50; Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.) Plaintiff’s only contention, in opposition to the motion, is that Defendants delayed in seeking leave to file a cross-complaint. 

In reviewing a denial of leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint, appellate courts review the entire record for any substantial evidence of bad faith, defined as, “dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, sinister motive, furtive design or ill will.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 100.) A delay in seeking leave, in itself, is not evidence of bad faith. Further, Plaintiffs identify no actual prejudice arising from the granting of this motion. A conclusory statement that they will be prejudiced, without more, is insufficient.  

The motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is therefore GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to file a separate copy of their proposed cross-complaint within five (5) days of the date of this Order. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 29th day of May 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court