Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22IWUD01990, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

I. BACKGROUND

Factual

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiffs, James W. Goddard and Juli M. Rice (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Limited Civil Commercial UD Complaint against Defendants, Sam Lallani dba Milas Beauty Studio, and DOES 1 through 10. On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, alleging that possession of the rental premises was not longer at issue.

Now, Defendant Salim Lallani, seeks to file a Cross-Complaint against James W. Goddard, Juli M. Rice, Mei Real Estate Services, Rodney Stringer, and DOES 11 through 20.

On September 27, 2023, Defendant Salim Lallani filed a Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint (“CC”). On October 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On October 30, 2023, Defendant Salim Lallani filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Discussion

Defendant argues that every cause of action in the proposed cross-complaint arose out of the subject lease and relates to the actions of plaintiffs and their property management company MEI Real Estate Services and its manager, Rodney Stinger, in administering the lease. Defendant also argues that granting leave to file the compulsory cross-complaint against Plaintiffs is mandatory because they are the original named plaintiffs, and this is Defendant Lallani’s only opportunity to obtain redress against them as the action will be barred by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 426.30.

Here, Plaintiffs do not argue that this filing would be compulsory. Instead, they argue that Defendant Lallani’s proposed cross-complaint is so vague that it is unclear what fatcs or allegations are alleged against the existing Plaintiffs versus the proposed new third-party cross-complainant, who are the property manager and property management company of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suggest that the proposed Cross-Complaint, as it is currently drafted, would throw the case into confusion and disarray because it would most certainly result in demurrers and/or motions to strike by Plaintiffs and the prospective Cross-Defendants and simply prolong this case from getting at issue.

Plaintiffs misunderstand the standard set forth in a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint. The liberal policy for granting such a motion is only outweighed by substantial prejudice on the adverse party. Plaintiffs’ opposition makes no mention of the prejudice it will suffer if this Court allows Defendant Lallani to file its Cross-Complaint, aside from confusion and law/motion activity. Although Plaintiffs contend that the sufficiency of the pleading may be lacking, this standard is tested during a demurrer and motion to strike – not a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint. Because Defendant Lallani has included a proposed cross-complaint, and followed the procedural guidelines, this Motion is GRANTED.