Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV26547, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV26547    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff and cross-defendant David Maijala

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant and cross-complainant Mulgrew Aircraft Components, Inc.

Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint

The court considered the amended moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff and cross-defendant David Maijala (“Maijala”) moves the court for an order striking the Cross-Complaint filed by defendant and cross-complainant Mulgrew Aircraft Components, Inc. (“Mulgrew”) on December 7, 2023 as untimely.

“If a party does not file a cross-complaint against its opponent ‘before or at the same time as the answer’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (a)), that party ‘shall obtain leave of court’ to file one (id., subd. (c)).”  (Department of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 295.)  

In its opposition, Mulgrew states that, in the event the court is inclined to grant Maijala’s motion, “Mulgrew respectfully requests leave to amend, and an opportunity to move the Court for leave to file a Cross-Complaint.”  (Opp., p. 8:15-17.)  Further, in explaining its delay in filing the Cross-Complaint, Mulgrew has stated that (1) it first had constructive notice of Maijala’s breach of the parties’ employment agreement on June 15, 2022, when he produced several thousand of Mulgrew’s documents during discovery (Opp., p. 2:15-19); (2) actual notice of the facts underlying its claims did not occur until late 2023 (Opp., p. 3:21-22); and (3) Maijala admitted, in discovery responses served on January 21, 2024, that he used a USB drive to remove documents from Mulgrew (Nenni Decl., ¶ 2).

First, the court finds that Mulgrew’s Cross-Complaint is not compulsory since it does not assert causes of action “aris[ing] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause[s] of action which [plaintiff Maijala] alleges in his complaint.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c).)  

To determine whether the relatedness requirement is met, courts will evaluate whether “the claims ‘involve[] common issues of law and fact,’ an ‘overlap of issues,’ and a common transaction.  [Citation.]”  (ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 69, 82.)  Although both Maijala’s Complaint and Mulgrew’s Cross-Complaint concern Maijala’s employment, Maijala’s Complaint is based on his allegations that Mulgrew retaliated against him for reporting violations of law, terminated him without good cause, and caused him emotional distress (Compl., ¶¶ 55, 62, 70, 74), whereas Mulgrew’s Cross-Complaint is based on its allegations that Maijala accessed and used Mulgrew’s confidential information and misappropriated its trade secrets (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 26-27, 36, 40, 45, 47).  Thus, the two pleadings do not involve common issues of law and fact, an overlap of issues, or a common transaction.[1]

Second, the court finds that Mulgrew has shown that it is “in the interest of justice” to allow it to file its Cross-Complaint against Maijala (1) because Mulgrew discovered the facts underlying its claims during discovery in this action, and (2) in order to allow Mulgrew an opportunity to seek redress against Maijala based on his alleged misappropriation of Mulgrew’s trade secrets and breach of contract.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c) [“Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action”].)  The court has also considered that the parties have recently stipulated to continue trial in this action, which will provide the parties more time to conduct discovery on the claims alleged in Mulgrew’s Cross-Complaint.  (April 10, 2024 Stipulation to Continue Trial and Related Dates, ¶¶ 2, 4.)  

Thus, the court (1) exercises its discretion to grant Mulgrew’s request for leave to allow it to file its Cross-Complaint, and (2) therefore denies Maijala’s motion to strike Mulgrew’s Cross-Complaint as untimely.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 428.50, subd. (c), 436.)

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff and cross-defendant David Maijala’s motion to strike cross-complaint.

            The court (1) grants defendant and cross-complainant Mulgrew Aircraft Components, Inc. leave to file its Cross-Complaint, and (2) orders that Mulgrew Aircraft Components, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint filed on December 7, 2023 is deemed properly filed.

            The court orders defendant and cross-complainant Mulgrew Aircraft Components, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 17, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court