Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV35455, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35455 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint from Defendant City
of Los Angeles.
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff Alicia
Tanaka (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against City of Los Angeles, County of
Los Angeles, State of California, and Does 1 through 100 for (1) Dangerous
Condition on Public Property, (2) Premises Liability, and (3) General Negligence,
arising out of a scooter accident occurring on July 6, 2022.
On January 11, 2023, Defendant City
of Los Angeles (“City”) filed its answer.
On December 19, 2023, City filed this
motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Plaintiff filed her opposition on
February 1, 2024.
Legal Standard
“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 a person
is already 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.)
When a party seeks to file a cross-complaint against
a person or entity that is not already a party in the case, and a date for
trial has already been set, the party seeking to file the cross-complaint must
obtain leave of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)
Code of
Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (c), provides that leave to file
such a cross-complaint “may be granted in the interest of justice at any time
during the course of the action.” Where, as here, the proposed cross-complaint
is permissive (not compulsory), the Court has broad discretion regarding
whether to grant or deny the request for leave. (Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Emerald (1990)
221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)
Discussion
City seeks to file a permissive
cross-complaint for indemnification and declaratory relief against Superpedestrian,
Inc. (Exhibit A, proposed Cross-Complaint.) City asserts it is in the interest of justice
for leave to be granted as Superpedestrian has an obligation to indemnify
Moving Party but has refused a tender.
City stated in its moving papers that it
learned of Superpedestrian’s involvement for the first time during Plaintiff’s
deposition on September 7, 2023. (McGuire
Decl., ¶ 3.) But Plaintiff showed in its
opposition papers that in fact City has known about Superpedestrian’s role
since at least January 11, 2023. (Elliott
Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. 5.)
Despite this knowledge, City delayed seeking
to file a cross-complaint for almost a full year. Now, adding a new party would almost
certainly require a continuance of the trial date and duplicative discovery
that could easily have been avoided if City had acted in a diligent manner.
Under these circumstances, and particularly
City’s unexplained delay, the Court finds that it would not be in the interest
of justice to grant the motion.
The motion is DENIED.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES City’s motion for leave to
file a Cross-Complaint.
Moving
Party to give notice.