Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV03123, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03123    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     November 7, 2024                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         E on Los Angeles, LLC v. Narinder Pallan

CASE NO.:                 24STCV03123           

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Narinder Pallan, in pro per.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff E on Los Angeles, LLC.

CASE HISTORY:

·         02/06/24: Complaint filed.

·         06/18/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of lease. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay rent owed on a commercial lease and, upon relinquishing possession of the premises, left them in disrepair.

Defendant moves for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to serve and file a clean standalone copy of the proposed cross-complaint within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint.

//

//

Compulsory Cross-Complaint

Parties generally must file a cross-complaint against the party who filed the complaint before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(a).) Parties seeking to file untimely compulsory cross-complaints may move the Court for leave to do so, even though the failure to timely file resulted from oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.) In such a case, after notice to the adverse party, the Court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint if the party acted in good faith. This section is liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. (Id.)

The purpose of the compulsory cross-complaint statute is to prevent piecemeal litigation. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 959.) Compulsory cross-complaints consist of those causes of action existing at the time of service of the answer that the defendant must bring against the plaintiff, or else forfeit the right to bring them in any other action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30(a).) Specifically, compulsory cross-complaints consist of the causes of action that “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10(c).) To avoid piecemeal litigation, courts liberally construe the term “transaction”—it is “ ‘not confined to a single, isolated act or occurrence . . . but may embrace a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated.’ ” (Align Technology, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at 960.)

Thus, a motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint filed at any time during the course of the action must be granted where forfeiture would otherwise result, unless the moving party engaged in bad faith conduct. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) The determination that the moving party acted in bad faith must be supported by substantial evidence. (Ibid.; Foot’s Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 902 [“We conclude that this principle of liberality requires that a strong showing of bad faith be made in order to support a denial of the right to file a cross-complaint under this section”].) “Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at 99) Rather, bad faith is “defined as ‘[t]he opposite of “good faith,” generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . . , but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.’” (Id. at 100.) 

Here, Defendant seeks leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint claiming that Plaintiff, as the landlord, allowed Defendant’s property to sustain water damage during heavy rains in December 2023 by failing to make repairs to the roof of the premises. (Defendant’s Exh. A.) Defendant offers no explanation for the delay beyond the bare statement that he did not wish to assert his crossclaims at the time the operative answer was filed. (Declaration of Narinder Pallan ISO Mot. ¶ 2.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not entitled to leave to assert this belated crossclaim because he admits to knowingly delaying the presentation of this claim. However, mere delay, even knowingly, does not empower the Court to deny a motion seeking to assert compulsory crossclaims absent substantial evidence that the delay was made for some improper purpose. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) At best, Defendant’s declaration demonstrates poor judgment, which is not a sufficient basis for denial where, as here, Plaintiff concedes that the proposed crossclaims are compulsory crossclaims. The Court is therefore obligated to permit Defendant to file his cross-complaint.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to serve and file a clean standalone copy of the proposed cross-complaint within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  November 7, 2024                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.