Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV02792, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV02792    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Arturo Salvador’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Arturo Salvador’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED and Defendant Arturo Salvador is ordered to separately file the proposed Cross-Complaint with the Court forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. In March 2021, Plaintiff Wilfredo Machado Pacheco entered into an alleged agreement with Defendant Arturo Salvador in which Machado Pacheco agreed to invest $300,000 in Salvador’s transportation business. In exchange, Salvador allegedly promised to transfer the titles for twenty-one of the business’s tractor-trailer vehicles to Machado Pacheco. After Machado Pacheco transferred $307,200 to Salvador and Salvador’s business partners, Salvador allegedly failed to transfer the titles or return the money.

On September 12, 2023, Machado Pacheco filed a complaint against Salvador and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) breach of oral contract, (3) conversion, and (4) common counts.

On December 8, 2023, Salvador filed an answer to the Complaint.

On October 17, 2024, Salvador filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for November 13, 2024, along with an informal discovery conference and post-mediation status conference/trial setting conference.

ANALYSIS

Salvador seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Armando Paniagua Prudencio, Erika Sarai Liopez Ventura, Maria Angelica Espinoza Chavez, Jose Amilcar Solorzano Monge, Keiry Vanessa Lopez Ventura, Carlos Ernesto Hernandez Perez, and Roes 1-50 that alleges causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) implied indemnity, (3) comparative indemnity, (4) apportionment of fault, and (5) contribution. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Salvador’s motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (a), a party is entitled to “file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.” Furthermore, “[a]ny other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (b).) If a cross-compliant is not filed within these guidelines, it may only be filed with leave of the court, who may grant it “in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).)

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)  A “‘[r]elated cause of action’ means 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c).)  Leave must be granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in good faith. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

“[W]hat constitutes ‘good faith’—or lack of it—under Code of Civil Procedure Section 426.50 must be determined in light of and in conformity with the liberality conferred upon the trial courts by the section and by prior law. … [T]his 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 Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 902.) A determination of bad faith may be premised on “substantial injustice or prejudice” to the opposing party.  (Id., at p. 903; see also Gherman v. Colburn (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 544, 560, fn. 9 [stating leave was properly denied where defendant’s motion “was merely a tactical strategic maneuver to deprive plaintiffs of a right to a jury trial”].)

Discussion

In this case, Salvador’s counsel states Salvador’s claims are compulsory because they arise out the same transaction or series of events as Machado Pacheco’s action. (Seyfnia Decl., ¶ 8.) While Salvador filed an answer, Salvador initially delayed in filing the proposed cross-complaint to see if Salvador and Machado Pacheco could resolve their dispute through mediation. (Seyfnia Decl., ¶ 5-6.) After they were unable to do so by October 2024, Salvador’s counsel began the process of preparing this cross-complaint. (Seyfnia Decl., ¶ 7.) Based on these representations, the court finds Salvador has established good cause to file a cross-complaint.  Further, the court received  no opposition to the present motion.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Salvador’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Salvador’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED and Salvador is ordered to separately file the proposed cross-complaint with the court forthwith.