Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV30407, Date: 2024-10-29 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: 21STCV30407    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Micro Art, Inc.

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.[1]  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc. (“Defendants”) move the court for an order granting them leave to file a Cross-Complaint against plaintiff Micro Art, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).

The court finds that Defendants have not shown that, in requesting leave to file the proposed Cross-Complaint, they have acted in good faith, such that they have not shown that the court is required to grant them leave to file their Cross-Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

In support of their motion, Defendants have argued that their proposed Cross-Complaint “arises from the same transaction and occurrence that is the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint and involves common issues of law and fact.”  (Mot., p. 3:4-7.)  Moreover, the court has reviewed the proposed Cross-Complaint and finds that the causes of action asserted therein arise from the same transaction described in Plaintiff’s Complaint.  (Mot., Ex. A, Proposed Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 4, 9 [alleging breach of the Lease Agreement that is the subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint], 12 [alleging existence of nuisance regarding Plaintiff’s conduct in the common areas], 17 [alleging conduct relating to premises subject to the Lease Agreement], 20 [alleging controversy regarding obligations of Lease Agreement], 24 [alleging breach of covenant of good faith created by Lease Agreement], p. 7:10-15 [alleging harassment, including based on conduct relating to services provided under the Lease Agreement]; Heshejin v. Rostami (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 984, 994 [“‘In the breach of contract context, the rule means any claims the defendant has against the plaintiff based on the same contract generally must be asserted in a cross-complaint, even if the claims are unrelated to the specific breach or breaches that underlie the plaintiff’s complaint’”].)  Thus, Defendants have requested leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint.  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c) [defining a related cause of action in the compulsory cross-complaint statute to be “a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint”].)

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a).)  “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

The court finds that Defendants have not met their burden to show that the court must grant them leave to file their proposed compulsory Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff because Defendants did not present argument or evidence showing that they have acted in good faith as required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.050.)  Defendants did not (1) address the good faith requirement in their moving papers, or (2) present evidence establishing that they acted in good faith (e.g., by justifying their approximate two-year delay in asserting their compulsory causes of action against Plaintiff).  Thus, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that the court is required to grant them leave to file their Cross-Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)  

The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion.  

ORDER

            The court denies defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc.’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint.

            The court orders plaintiff Micro Art, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 29, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court