SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff Jade Carrasco (“Carrasco”), by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Jesse Ronald Carrasco, and Jazelle Dimas (“Dimas”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Positive Investments Inc., PI Properties LLC, and Becky Radgowski (“Becky”) for injuries Plaintiffs sustained in a dog bite attack. On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed Amendments to Complaint naming Defendants Ariana Arambula (“Arambula”) as Doe 1, Joseph M. Radgowski (“Joseph”) as Doe 2, and Mark A. Radgowski (“Mark”) as Doe 3. Trial is currently set for March 27, 2024. 

At this time, Defendants Positive Investments Inc. and PI Properties LLC (“Defendants”) seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Defendants Becky, Arambula, Joseph, and Mark, and against Plaintiff Dimas for indemnification, contribution and apportionment of fault.  

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. 

 

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 March 8, 2022, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. On May 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed amendments to their Complaint to Doe in Arambula, Joseph, and Mark. Defendants Becky, Arambula, Joseph, and Mark, all in pro per, filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on April 25, 2023. Defendants argue the central issue of Plaintiffs’ action concerns the true owner or keeper of the dog at issue, and whether Positive had knowledge of the dog and its propensity for violence. Defendants contend they now have reason to believe Defendants Becky, Arambula, Joseph, and Mark, and Plaintiff Dimas intentionally deceived Defendants’ employee that they were only temporarily watching the dog on one occasion, and that they were in fact the permanent owners of the dog. Through discovery, Defendants aver they learned Plaintiffs were living on the premises without Defendants’ consent or knowledge, and by doing so, Dimas permitted her daughter Carrasco to live with the dog that ultimately attacked her. Defendants attempted to obtain a stipulation from the parties to file its cross-complaint to no avail. 

Plaintiffs, in opposition, contend that Defendants fail to make a showing of why they did not file a cross-complaint at the time of their initial appearance, or any information as to when they uncovered the information giving rise to the cross-complaint, and that Defendants waited until the eve of trial to seek leave to file a cross-complaint. Plaintiffs further contend they will suffer substantial prejudice because the proposed cross-complaint is an “open door” cross-complaint, on the grounds that Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement their Answer or cross-complaint to plead further defenses as proper and necessary.  

In reply, Defendants aver that the cross-complaint alleges newly discovered facts, such as the identity of the true owner and keeper of the dog, and that Plaintiffs were living with Defendants Becky, Arambula, Joseph, and Mark without Defendants’ knowledge or consent as tenants. These facts were not known to Defendants at the time they filed their Answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint.  

 The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that the proposed cross-complaint does not specifically identify the causes of action or raise allegations, to the point that the cross-complaint is “uncertain to the point of being unintelligible.” Furthermore, just as Plaintiffs have the right to seek leave to amend their Complaint at a later point should new facts be discovered, so too do Defendants as to their cross-complaint; the fact that this remedy exists is not in itself prejudicial. The allegations in the proposed cross-complaint arise from the same transaction as Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants, and the proposed Cross-Defendants are already parties to the action. With trial currently set for March 27, 2024, the Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ contention that it is on the “eve of trial,” when there is still five months from the present date. Accordingly, 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. Should Plaintiffs wish to bring a demurrer to Defendants’ cross-complaint, they may do so within the applicable time limitations. The Court will not prematurely analyze the merits of a motion not filed.  

 Based on the foregoing, the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is therefore GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to file their proposed cross-complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.