Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: "Beijing Luode Property Management Co., Ltd. vs. Qin", Date: 2022-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Han Qin’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted.  (Code of Civil Procedure, § 426.30) 

Cross-complainants shall have leave to separately e-file and serve the proposed cross-complaint (Lin decl. Ex. A).

Separate e-filing is critical to ensure the pleading is properly indexed in the court’s electronic filing system.

Beijing’s request for additional time to respond is denied.

The proposed cross-complaint is compulsory.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c); Align Technol., Inc. v Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [“‘transaction” is construed broadly” to include logically related claims].)  The guaranty priority agreement alleged in the cross-complaint is logically related to the loan agreement alleged in the complaint. 

It is not clear an otherwise compulsory cross-complaint becomes non-compulsory simply because it includes new cross-defendants, especially when they are alleged to be alter egos of the plaintiff/cross-defendant.  Nor is it clear “the court cannot acquire jurisdiction” over the new cross-defendants.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.40, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff also has not shown defendant is seeking leave in bad faith.  (See Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)

In any event, the court would exercise its discretion to allow the proposed cross-complaint as a permissive cross-complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).)  Defendant has explained the delay; plaintiff is not substantially prejudiced.

Defendant shall give notice.