Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV11175, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11175 Hearing Date: May 8, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED.
Legal
Standard
CCP §
428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted
may file a cross-complaint setting forth:
“(b) Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable
thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the
cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause
brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property
or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.” (CCP § 428.10(b).) A party shall obtain leave
of court to file a cross-complaint if it is not concurrently filed with the
answer or at any time before the court sets a trial date. Leave may be granted
in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (CCP § 428.10(c).)
If a
cross-complaint is compulsory, leave must be granted as long as the
cross-complainant is acting in good faith, so as to avoid forfeiture of the causes
of action. (C.C.P. §426.50; See Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank
(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 101 (concluding that the late filing of the motion to
file a compulsory cross-complaint absent some evidence of bad faith is
insufficient evidence to support denial of the motion).) To be considered a
compulsory cross-complaint, the related cause of action must have existed at
the time defendant served its answer to the complaint. (Weil & Brown,
California Practice Guide (2008), Civil Procedure Before Trial §6:516; See also
Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) If the
cross-complaint is not compulsory, but rather is permissive, the Court has sole
discretion whether to grant or deny leave. (Id.)
“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the
requirements of this article, whether through over-sight, 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.” (CCP § 426.50.) The Court shall grant
such a motion if the moving party acted in good faith. (CCP §
426.50.)
The determination that the moving party acted in bad faith must be
supported by substantial evidence. (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co.
v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897 (evidence insufficient to support trial
court's denial of motion to file cross-complaint notwithstanding that defendant
waited 23 months after service of complaint and 16 months after filing answer
before asserting right to file cross-complaint, where nothing in record
suggested that defendant was unusually reprehensible with regard to delay,
plaintiff waited for two years to file action, and plaintiff’s counsel
equivocated concerning stipulation allowing the filing of cross-complaint at
same time counsel conducted discovery concerning the claim defendant sought to
assert in the cross-complaint).)
At
minimum, a very strong
showing of bad faith on the part of the defendant is required before a court
will be justified in denial of leave to file or amend a cross-complaint. (Sidney v.
Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d at 710, 718.) The burden of
showing bad faith rests on the party opposing the allowance of the cross-complaint.
(Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217
Cal.App.3d 94.)
A determination that the petitioner
acted in bad faith may be premised on “substantial injustice or prejudice” to
the opposing party. (Foot's
Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.3d at 903; See also Gherman v. Colburn (1977)
72 Cal.App.3d 544, 558-59 (stating that leave was properly denied when the
defendant’s motion “was merely a tactical strategic maneuver to deprive
plaintiffs of a right to a jury trial”).)
Discussion
Defendants
move to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for indemnification,
appointment of fault, and or contribution. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs provided responses to the
initial discovery requests on or about June 8, 2022. A video from a home across
the street from the subject incident was included in Plaintiffs’ responses.
Upon reviewing the discovery responses, the defense determined that Plaintiff,
the vehicle driver, shared a portion of liability for the subject incident.
Defendants argue that the parties will not be prejudiced as to the filing of
the cross-complaint as trial is set for September 29, 2023.
The Court finds that the cross-complaint is compulsory
because it arises out of the same occurrence, namely, the vehicle collision at
issue. “Cross-complaints for
comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally
related to the main action.” (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield
Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.) Thus, there must be substantial evidence that Defendants
acted in bad faith to justify a denial of their motion to file a
cross-complaint.
The Court finds that no party has made any showing of bad
faith.
As such, the
motion must be granted.
Conclusion
Therefore, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a
cross-complaint is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.