Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV00577, Date: 2025-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00577    Hearing Date: April 16, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Jason Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative “Complaint for Negligence” on January 9, 2024, against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”).

The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that on February 20, 2023, Plaintiff was a passenger in a train owned by Metro when the train collided with a vehicle, causing him to sustain injuries. (Compl., ¶¶ 7, 8.)

Metro now moves for an order granting it leave to file a Cross-Complaint against nonparty Nelson Alexander Machado aka Michelle Machado (“Nelson Machado”). 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.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, “[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¿.)  

Metro’s counsel attaches as Exhibit B to a supporting declaration a copy of the proposed cross-complaint. (Liu Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B.) The proposed cross-complaint is by Cross-Complainant Metro against Cross-Defendant Nelson Machado and Roes 1 through 61. (Ibid.) The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity, partial or comparative indemnity, (2) declaratory relief, (3) equitable comparative contribution, (4) apportionment of fault based on comparative negligence and/or comparative fault, and (5) property damage. 

            The proposed cross-complaint alleges, inter alia, that “On or about February 20, 2023, at or near the intersection of Long Beach Avenue and E 24th Street, in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Cross-Defendants NELSON ALEXANDER MACHADO AKA MICHELLE MACHADO and ROE COMPANIES 31 through 60, Inclusive, negligently, carelessly and unlawfully, owned, operated, entrusted, maintained, parked, drove, repaired and controlled their said motor vehicle so as to cause and contribute to the subject accident and incident. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Cross-Defendants, and each of them, Cross-Complainant’s motor vehicle was wrecked, damaged

and depreciated and Cross-Complainant lost the use of said vehicle in an amount unknown

to Cross-Complainant who will ask leave of the court to amend this Cross-Complaint to

show the true amount of damages at the time of trial and therefore alleges property

damage, loss of use, storage costs, and incidental damages according to proof at trial.” (Liu Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. B, ¶ 23.)

            In his supporting declaration, defense counsel states that “DVR footage shows that Nelson made an illegal left turn onto 24^th Street against a red arrow light, into the path of the train, causing the incident.” (Liu Decl., ¶ 2.) Metro’s “investigation shows that on December 10, 2024, Nelson was convicted with felony PC192(c)(1)-F: Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence for this incident (Case No. LACBA514018-01).” (Liu Decl., ¶ 3 [bold emphasis removed].) “Upon discovery of Nelson’s conviction, [defense counsel] immediately contacted Plaintiff’s counsel for a stipulation for leave for Metro to file a Cross-Complaint. The parties agreed to the stipulation over a phone call on January 14, 2025. However, Plaintiff’s counsel since then have not responded to Metro’s counsel’s email regarding the stipulation.” (Liu Decl., ¶ 4.)  

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Metro has demonstrated good cause to file the proposed cross-complaint.  

Conclusion

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

DATED:  April 16, 2025                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court