I. BACKGROUND  

Plaintiff Vonda Washington (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) and Does 1 to 50 for damages arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk. Plaintiff filed amendments to complaint, naming Letha Jones as Doe 2.  

Letha Jones (“Jones”) filed an Answer in pro per on July 5, 2023. 

Jones, now represented by counsel, seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to Plaintiff’s complaint to include affirmative defenses not previously pleaded due to the lack of assistance of an attorney. Simultaneously in the same motion, Jones requests leave to file a cross-complaint against co-defendant the City. Jones seeks indemnification and apportionment of liability from the City for Plaintiff’s losses.  

Any opposition was due on or before April 17, 2024; none was filed.  

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PLEADING  

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”  

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)   

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.  

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. 

Here, Jones seeks to add the following affirmative defenses, which were not specifically set forth in her original Answer: “(1) Failure to state a claim; (2) Comparative negligence of Plaintiff; (3) Negligence of other parties, e.g., the City of Los Angeles; (4) The right to offset, apportionment, and/or indemnity; (5) Assumption of risk by Plaintiff; (6) Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages; (7) Defendants’ reasonable exercise of ordinary due care; (8) Misjoinder and/or nonjoinder of parties; (9) No Duty by Defendant over the subject premises; (10) No notice to Defendant of any defect in the subject premises; and (11) Reasonable condition of the premises.” (Mot. 3:23-28.) However, aside from providing a copy of the proposed FAA, Jones has not fully complied with CRC Rule 3.1324(a)(3). Either Jones must state where the amendments are by page, paragraph, and line number, or alternatively Jones may provide a redlined copy to demonstrate where the proposed amendments are being made. Second, the motion does not comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). The affidavit of James J. Perkins does not clearly address each factor required by this rule. 

Based on the foregoing, the motion for leave to file a FAA is DENIED without prejudice on the grounds of procedural deficiencies.  

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).) 

Here, Jones contends that her claims against the City arise out of the same transactions asserted by Plaintiff, and that she seeks indemnification and apportionment of fault against it. The City did not file a cross-complaint against Jones, and thus the proposed cross-complaint by Jones against the City is permissive as opposed to compulsory. Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice. (CCP §428.50(c).) The Court finds it in the interest of justice that the proposed cross-complaint and complaint arising from the same incident should be litigated together. There is also no evidence that Jones has been dilatory in seeking to file the cross-complaint. Jones filed a substitution of attorney on January 2, 2024, and through her counsel, filed the instant motion for leave to amend on January 25, 2024. Further, the Court finds no party will be prejudiced by the filing of the cross-complaint, as no parties oppose the motion. Trial is currently set for December 9, 2024, and there is still time to conduct discovery. 

Based on the foregoing, Jones’ motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is GRANTED.   

III. CONCLUSION   

The motion for leave to file a FAA is DENIED without prejudice as to Jones re-filing the motion after curing the procedural deficiencies noted above. 

The motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is GRANTED. Jones 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: 

Dated this 29th day of April 2024