Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV49116, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49116    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                SM 10000 Property, LLC (erroneously sued as Crescent Heights, Inc.)

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2021, plaintiff Michelle Giralo (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint in this action against SM 10000 Property, LLC (erroneously sued as Crescent Heights, Inc.), alleging various claims for violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code.  (FAC, ¶¶ 1-2.)

On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint which substituted Crescent Heights Services CA, LLC as the true name for the fictitious name Doe 1 as a defendant in the complaint.    

On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed defendant SM 10000 Property, LLC without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

SM 10000 Property, LLC (erroneously sued as Crescent Heights, Inc.) (“SM 10000”) now moves the court for an order granting it leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

The court finds that SM 10000 does not have standing to file a cross-complaint and therefore denies the motion.

The purpose of a cross-complaint is to permit a defendant “to assert claims for affirmative relief against plaintiff, or a crossdefendant, or someone not yet a party to the action….” (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group) Ch. 6-D, ¶ 6:500.)  “A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint” which sets forth (1) any causes of action against any of the parties who filed a complaint against him or her, or (2) any cause of action he or she has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in the cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the cause brought against the cross-complainant, or asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against the cross-complainant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.)  This provision “explicitly permits ‘[a] party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint’ to file a cross-complaint….”  (Paragon Real Estate Group of San Francisco, Inc. v. Hansen (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 177, 182.)

Code of Civil Procedure sections 428.10 and 428.50 contemplate the filing of a compulsory cross-complaint to be done by a party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10 [“A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted” may file a cross-complaint]; Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (a) [“A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her”].)  While the court has discretion to allow the filing of a permissive cross-complaint, the statutory language similarly authorizes “[a] party” to the action to file such a cross-complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c) [emphasis added].) 

SM 10000 was a party to this action when its motion was filed on February 2, 2022.  However, SM 10000 has since been dismissed from the First Amended Complaint by Plaintiff, and no other cross-complaints have been filed naming SM 10000 as a cross-defendant.  The court therefore finds that SM 10000 is not “[a] party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint” and thus may not file a cross-complaint pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 428.10 and 428.50, subdivisions (a) and (c).

The court therefore denies SM 10000’s motion without prejudice to seeking other appropriate relief to assert its claims against Plaintiff. 

ORDER

            The court denies SM 10000 Property, LLC’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint.

            The court orders SM 10000 Property, LLC to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 12, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court