Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV06547, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06547    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Nychell N. Hughes and Hakeem F. Smith (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Sara Maldonado (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Defendant filed her answer to the complaint on August 22, 2022.   

At this time, Defendant seeks to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs for (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.  The motion is unopposed.    

2. 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.  §428.50(c).

Here, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs caused or contributed to the accident by entering the subject intersection on a red light.  Defendant contends that the cross-complaint thus arises out of the same transaction and occurrence as the complaint, and that it will allow the parties to resolve arising from the accident in this action. 

The complaint and cross-complaint arise from the same incident and should be litigated together.  There is no evidence Defendant has been dilatory in seeking to file the cross-complaint.  Further, the Court finds no party will be prejudiced by the filing of the cross-complaint, as trial is not currently scheduled until August 22, 2023. 

Defendant’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint is granted.  Defendant’s separately filed proposed cross-complaint filed December 8, 2022, is deemed filed this date.  Defendant is ordered to serve Plaintiffs in compliance with the Rules of Court.

Defendant 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 20^th day of April 2023