Fernando Munguia Jr. v. Bella + Canvas, LLC

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Bella + Canvas, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Fernando Munguia Jr.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Fernando Munguia Jr. worked for Defendant Bella + Canvas, LLC, in the Human Resources Department. Plaintiff alleges his boss, Patricia Rodriguez, consistently inquired about his sexual orientation and sexual proclivities, among other things. When Plaintiff failed to divulge the information, Rodriguez allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff at work. Plaintiff alleges he reported Rodriguez’s misconduct to higher ups in the company, who failed to take action. Plaintiff alleges he had a panic attack due to the mistreatment, which required medical leave. Once Plaintiff was in condition to return to work, Defendant allegedly failed to offer reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) FEHA sexual harassment, (2) FEHA retaliation, (3) Labor Code retaliation, and (4) Violation of California Family Rights Act (Gov. Code § 12945.2.)

Defendant now moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint.  Plaintiff opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to file a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

The Cross-Complaint must be filed and served to all current parties within 10-days of this Ruling.  

Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Analysis

Defendant Bella + Canvas, LLC, moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff.

Defendant represents that on March 17, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests, including responses to Employment Form Interrogatories. In those responses, Plaintiff stated he had obtained other employment since commencing his medical leave. (Mullen Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1 at p. 18.) Prior to receiving these responses, Defendant represents it was not aware that Plaintiff held other employment during these time periods. (Mullen Decl. ¶ 3; Mauser Decl. ¶ 5.)

Accordingly, Defendant seeks to brings cross-claims against Plaintiff for (1) breach of his employment agreement and (2) fraud. Defendant will allege that Plaintiff breached his employment agreement by maintaining full-time employment with another employer at the same time Defendant employed him, and committed fraud by intentionally misrepresenting if he was able to return to work while obtaining other full-time employment. (Cross-Complaint ¶¶ 20-36.) 

Cross-claims against complainants arising from the same transaction or series thereof, existing at the time of filing an answer, are compulsory.  (See, e.g., CCP §426.30(a); Al Holding Co. v. O’Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313-14.)  Leave to file compulsory cross-complaints must be granted where moving parties acted in good faith.  (CCP § 426.50; Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.)  The “principle of liberality requires that a strong showing of bad faith be made in order to support a denial of the right to file a cross-complaint under this section.”  (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Ct. (1980) 114 Cal. App. 3d 897, 902 [emphasis added].) “The legislative mandate is clear.  A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court.  A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result.”  (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.)

Defendant contends these cross-claims are compulsory, as they “arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences as Plaintiff’s complaint—namely, the employment relationship.” (Mtn. 5: 8-10.) Defendant denies any bad faith in bringing this motion as this time. Instead, Defendant states it was not aware of the facts underlying the proposed cross-claims until Plaintiff’s March 2023 discovery responses. 

Plaintiff opposes leave to amend. He concedes the claims are compulsory. (Opp. 1: 26.) Plaintiff first contends that Plaintiff should have filed this motion earlier, or at least raised the possibility of doing so. This ignores, however, that Defendant was unaware of the facts giving rise to the cause of action until March of 2023—a point Plaintiff does not rebut.

Second, Plaintiff argues that even once Defendant learned of the facts giving rise to the cross-claims in March 2023, it delayed five months to file this motion.

While the court recognizes the delay, that alone does not evince bad faith. Where, as here, the Cross-Complaint is concededly compulsory, Plaintiff must make a strong showing of bad faith. He has not done so. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to relief.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for leave is GRANTED.

The Cross-Complaint must be filed and served to all current parties within 10 days. 

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 8, 2023 ___________________________________

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.