Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV22287, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22287    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff Nutman Enterprises, LLC (“Nutman Enterprises”) filed the instant “Complaint for Unlawful Detainer” against Defendant Tomatera Gomez USA, Inc. (“Tomatera”). The Complaint alleges one cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Tomatera now moves for an order granting it leave to file a cross-complaint in the instant action. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (a), “[a] party shall 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.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (b), “[a]ny other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (c), “[a] party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” Here, Tomatera seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Nutman Enterprises. (Anorga Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. A.)

Tomatera cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, which provides that “[a] party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, 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. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”

“A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” ((Silver Orgs. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.)

In his declaration in support of the instant motion, Tomatera’s counsel indicates that Tomatera filed an answer to the Complaint in this action on September 28, 2023. (Anorga Decl., ¶ 2.) Tomatera’s counsel states that “[n]o cross-complaint was filed or deemed necessary at the time the answer was filed. Since then, during settlement discussions, defendant has become aware of a dispute over the return of defendant’s security deposit and whether defendant owes for any damage to the property occurring during the tenancy.” (Anorga Decl., ¶ 3.) Tomatera’s counsel further states that “[o]n October 13/14, 2023, landlord plaintiff and tenant defendant entered into a settlement agreement disposing of all of their issues, save for the issue of the return of defendant’s security deposit and any claim plaintiff may have for repairing damage done to the premises during defendant’s tenancy.” (Anorga Decl., ¶ 4.)

In the proposed Cross-Complaint against Nutman Enterprises, Tomatera alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) common counts, and (3) declaratory relief. (Anorga Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. A.) In the proposed Cross-Complaint, Tomatera alleges, inter alia, that Nutman Enterprises breached the parties’ agreement by “[f]ailing to refund cross-complainant’s security deposit and charging cross-complainant for damage to the premises that either does not exist, or was not caused by any act or omission of cross-complainant.” (Anorga Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. A, p. 3.)

Tomatera asserts that here, “[d]uring the post-filing, pre-settlement period it became known that there was an issue regarding return of the security deposit and the landlord’s claim of tenant-caused damage to the leased property thereby giving rise to the need for a cross-complaint. There is no bad faith component of defendant’s motion.” (Mot. at p. 5:24-28.)
            Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Tomatera has demonstrated good cause for leave to file the proposed cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Tomatera’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted. The Court orders Tomatera to file and serve the proposed cross-complaint within 3 days of the date of this Order. 

Tomatera is ordered to give notice of this Order. 

DATED:  January 11, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court