Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV28132, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28132    Hearing Date: May 13, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

XIAOYAN RONG, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 22STCV28132 

 

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

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

May 13, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On August 29, 2022, plaintiff Xiaoyan Rong (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), Gerardo Cabrales (“Cabrales”), Diana Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and Does 1 through 100 for damages arising from a bus v. motor vehicle collision.  

On October 7, 2022, LACMTA filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On February 6, 2024, LACMTA filed a substitution of attorney.  

On February 22, 2024, LACMTA now seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Cabrales and Sanchez for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault/contribution, declaratory relief, and property damage arising from the incident. 

As of April 30, 2024, no opposition has been filed.  

 

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).)  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).) 

  1. Discussion 

Here, LACMTA’s perfunctory motion provides only that following his substitution as defense counsel for LACMTA, counsel discovered that Cabrales and Sanchez may have been comparatively at fault for the subject incident. No other details were provided. Nonetheless, no parties have opposed the motion. Defendant Cabrales has yet to appear in this action, and trial is currently set for January 15, 2025. The proposed cross-complaint and complaints arise from the same incident, and there is no opposition as to why this permissive cross-complaint should not be litigated together with Plaintiff’s action. The Court finds that LACMTA appears to have been dilatory in seeking leave to file the cross-complaint, considering both Cabrales and Sanchez were directly involved in the incident, and this information was apparently known to LACMTA at the time it had filed its Answer. LACMTA notably provides no reason as to what new facts were discovered that were not known at the time it filed its Answer. Nonetheless, because no parties filed any opposition and the current status quo of discovery is unknown, there does not appear to be any apparent prejudice to any party by way of the filing of the cross-complaint.  

 

III. CONCUSION  

LACMTA’s motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is GRANTED.  LACMTA is ordered to file a separate copy of the cross-complaint within ten (10) days.   

 

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 10th day of May 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court