Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV00085, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00085    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint 

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On January 3, 2023, Southern California Gas Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Erik D. Karas and Tanja B. Karas (collectively “Defendants”) for negligence and premises liability causes of action arising from an incident on January 4, 2021, in which a dog allegedly charged at one of  Plaintiff’s employee, causing the employee to fall and sustain injuries.  Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on June 2, 2023.

On March 5, 2024, Defendants filed this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. No opposition has been filed.

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).) 

Where, as here, the cross-complaint is permissive, the Court has broad discretion regarding whether to grant or deny leave.  (Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) ¿¿

Discussion

Defendant seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Arizona Pipeline Company (and Roe cross-defendants).  One of the defendants contends that prior to the incident, he was contacted by a representative from Arizona Pipeline Company, who told him it  was not necessary to secure his dog before the Plaintiff’s work on the nearby gas lines. (Motion, 4:10-19.) Defendants contend Arizona Pipeline Company failed to tell Plaintiff about the dog.  According to Defendants’ counsel, this information was learned only during the investigation of the claims and potential defenses.

Defendants argue that the cross-complaint will not cause any prejudice or delay, as the cross-complaint will only add a small amount of discovery as Arizona Pipeline Company is a contractor for Plaintiff. (Motion, 5:18-26.)

Defendants include a copy of the Cross-Complaint with its filing. (Wallin Decl., ¶ 11; Exhibit A.)

The Court finds that the cross-complaint arises out of the same series of occurrences as Plaintiff’s complaint, a dog bite incident occurring on January 4, 2021. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and so it does not appear that granting the motion will cause any undue prejudice to Plaintiff.  The Court is aware that the trial date is July 2, 2024, and a newly added party may need some time to conduct discovery, but given the nature of the claims and defenses it appears that any continuance is likely to be reasonably brief.

The motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

The Court GRANTS Defendants LEAVE to file the Cross-Complaint attached to the moving papers within 10 days of the hearing on this motion.

Moving Party to give notice.