SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiffs, Carl Nersesian and Lidia Nersesian (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Emanuel Solt (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident. On October 11, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

 

On August 16, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. Any opposition was due on or before November 17, 2023. The motion is unopposed.  

  

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.) 

 

Here, Defendant argues through the course of discovery, Defendant’s deposed a witness to the incident on March 1, 2023, which provided Defendant the grounds to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff. Defendant also conducted the deposition of Plaintiffs on July 31, 2023, and aver they ascertained liability was disputed and the necessity of a cross-complaint. Defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding a stipulation for leave to file a cross-complaint, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not agree. Defendant contends there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff. Based on the foregoing, and the lack of opposition by Plaintiff, the Court finds the absence of bad faith.  

 

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