Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00281, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00281    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED and the Cross-Complaint submitted with the declaration of Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Counsel is to be filed forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability action. In June 2023, Plaintiff Peter Tran tripped and fell on a sidewalk near Duranzo Drive in Hacienda Heights. Tran alleges the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition due to the alleged negligence of Defendant County of Los Angeles (the County).

On January 29, 2024, Tran filed a complaint against the County and Does 1-20, alleging a single cause of action for premises liability.

On March 7, 2024, the County filed an answer to Tran’s Complaint.

On May 16, 2024, the County filed the present motion. A hearing on the County’s motion is set for June 20, 2024. A case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for June 24, 2024.

ANALYSIS

The County seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Fernando Martinez-Zamilpa, Estella Zamilpa, and Roes 1-20 that alleges (1) equitable indemnity/express indemnity, (2) comparative fault/contribution, and (3) declaratory relief. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the County’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, the County’s counsel states Martinez-Zamilpa and Zamilpa are the owners of the property adjacent to the sidewalk where Tran was allegedly injured. (Kadomatsu Decl., ¶ 5.) In April 2024 after the County answered Tran’s Complaint, the County discovered Martinez-Zamilpa and Zamilpa had made modifications to the sidewalk at issue. (Kadomatsu Decl., ¶ 4.) As a result, the County now contends they are liable for the condition of the sidewalk. (Kadomatsu Decl., ¶ 6.) Based on these allegations, the court finds the County has established good cause to file a cross-complaint.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the County’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the County’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. The Cross-Complaint submitted with the declaration of the County’s counsel is to be filed separately forthwith.