Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 20STCV28620, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28620    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Tesla Energy Operations, Inc.’s unopposed motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted. 

Defendant Tesla Energy Operations, Inc. (“Tesla Energy”) (“Defendant”) moves unopposed for leave to file a cross-complaint in the instant action against dismissed cross-Defendant Amphenol Industrial Products Group (“Amphenol Industrial”) (“Cross-Defendant”). (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §428.50(c).) 

Background

On July 29, 2020, Plaintiff General Insurance Company of America (“General Insurance”) (“Plaintiff”) as subrogee of Weizhong Huang and Xiaohua Li (collectively, “Insured”) filed its complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants Tesla Energy [erroneously sued as Solar Edge Technologies, Inc.] (“Solar Edge”), Amphenol Corporation (“Amphenol Corp.”) [erroneously sued as Amphenaol Corporation], and Amphenol Industrial [erroneously sued as Amphenaol Industrial Products Group], alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict product liability, and (3) breach of implied warranty, to recover monies paid to its Insureds as a result of a fire that occurred at the insureds’ residence on August 5, 2017 (“Fire”).  (Complaint ¶8; Decl. of Sidran ¶2.)  Plaintiff alleges Defendants maintained, designed, manufactured, supplied, retailed, and/or modified a solar panel at Insureds’ property at 5178 N. Banna Ave., Covina, CA 91724-1133.  (Complaint ¶2.)  On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Solar Edge, Amphenol Corp., and Amphenol Industrial due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants within two years of filing its Complaint.  (Decl. of Sidran ¶4.)

On September 13, 2022, Defendant Tesla Energy filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.  Defendant Tesla Energy attached its proposed cross-complaint as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Sidran. As of the date of this hearing, Cross-Defendant Amphenol Industrial has not filed a reply. Trial is currently set for May 22, 2023.

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

          C.C.P. §426.30(a) provides, as follows:  “Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.”  (C.C.P. §426.30(a).)

          C.C.P. §426.50 provides, as follows:

A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.

(C.C.P. §426.50.)

          C.C.P. §428.50 provides, as follows:

1. A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.

    

2. Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

    

3. A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.

(C.C.P. §428.50, emphasis added.)

           A cross-complaint is compulsory if it is transactionally related to the subject matter of the complaint.  (C.C.P. §426.10.)  “To be considered a compulsory cross-complaint, a related cause of action must have existed at the time of the service of [the] answer to [the] complaint.”  (Crocker National Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)  The late filing of a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint “absent some evidence of bad faith is insufficient evidence to support denial of the motion.”  (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 101.)  “Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court’s discretion.”  (Crocker at 864.)

          Defendant’s proposed cross-complaint is a compulsory cross-complaint.  The cross-complaint arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as the causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint for indemnification, specifically the circumstances surrounding the Fire and Plaintiff’s payment of insurance proceeds to the Insureds.  (C.C.P. §426.10; Decl. of Sidran ¶¶2-5.)  In the proposed cross-complaint, Defendant Tesla Energy asserts the following causes of action against cross-Defendant Amphenol Industrial: (1) indemnification; (2) apportionment of fault; and (3) declaratory relief.  (See Decl. of Sidran, Exh. A [“Proposed XC”].)  Defendant Tesla Energy’s Proposed XC is based on the following allegations: (1) cross-defendants were the agents, employees, co-venturers, partners, or in some manner agents or principals, or both for each other and were acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment, that the principal action alleges conduct entitling Plaintiff to compensatory damages against Defendant Tesla Energy that Defendant Tesla Energy contends it is not liable for, and if Tesla Energy is found liable for the incidents described in Plaintiff’s Complaint, its liability would be based solely upon a derivative form of liability entitling it to complete indemnity from each cross-defendant; (2) each cross-defendant was responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries, if any, suffered by Plaintiff, and if Defendant Tesla Energy is judge to the liable to Plaintiff, each cross-defendant should be required to pay a share of Plaintiff’s judgment in proportion to the comparative negligence of that cross-defendant and reimburse Defendant Tesla Energy for any payments it makes to Plaintiff in excess of its proportional share of all cross-Defendants’ negligence; and (3) an actual controversy exists between the parties concerning their respective rights and duties because Defendant Tesla contends that cross-defendant is liable for damages alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint and the percentage of fault for cross-defendant is in dispute.  (Proposed XC ¶¶7-9.)

          Defendant Tesla Energy argues leave to file a cross-complaint against Defendant Amphenol Industrial is in the interest of justice because Plaintiff originally sought to name Amphenol as a defendant in this current litigation, but for some inexplicable reason could not serve Defendant Amphenol Industrial in the two years following Plaintiff’s filing of the Complaint. (Decl. of Sidran ¶¶2, 4.) Defendant Tesla Energy argues Defendant Amphenol Industrial was named in the Complaint because they are a manufacturer of components that are believed to have contributed to causing the Fire. (Decl. of Sidran ¶¶2-3.)  Defendant Tesla Energy argues as the distributor of their product, Defendant Tesla Energy has a right to indemnification from Defendant Amphenol Industrial because it both parties share liability for Plaintiff’s claims. (Memorandum, pgs. 3-4.) 

          Defendant Tesla Energy’s motion was made without  undue delay in good faith because Defendant Amphenol Industrial was only dismissed from Plaintiff’s Complaint on July 29, 2022, in response to an order to show cause for failure to serve within two years, and the instant motion was filed about 45 days later.  (Decl. of Sidran ¶4.)   Defendant Tesla Energy argues its need to bring Defendant Amphenol Industrial into this case did not arise until Defendant Amphenol Industrial was dismissed from Plaintiff’s action.  (Memorandum, pg. 4.)  Defendant Tesla Energy argues Defendant Amphenol Energy has been aware that this litigation exists and that it could be brought in at any time.  (Decl. of Sidran ¶¶7-8.)  Defendant Tesla Energy has sufficiently demonstrated that the Proposed XC is being brought in a timely manner and arises from the same transaction, occurrence, and events as Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore Defendant Tesla Energy’s motion is in the interests of justice.

          Based on the foregoing, Defendant Tesla Energy’s unopposed motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted.

Dated:  January _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court