Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV13610, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13610    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 26, 2025                      TRIAL DATE: November 4, 2025

CASE:                         Javier Lopez Jr, et al. v. BD Transport Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV13610           

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants BD Transport Inc. and Brian Danaher

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of March 21, 2025.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a PAGA action that was filed on May 31, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that they were systematically underpaid by Defendants.

Defendants move for leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Lopez.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

            Defendants shall file a clean, standalone copy of the Cross-Complaint within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants move for leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Lopez.

Legal Standard

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).) However, parties seeking to file untimely compulsory cross-complaints may file with 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. (Id.) 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 at any time during 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.) 

Analysis

            Defendants seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Lopez. The proposed Cross-Complaint asserts claims for indemnity, declaratory relief, and negligence on the grounds that Javier Lopez was responsible for furnishing Defendants with quotes for the labor for which the Plaintiffs were hired. (Defendants’ Exh. A. ¶¶ 11-14.) Thus, according to Defendants, Plaintiff Lopez is responsible for any deficiency in compensation. (See Id.) These claims arise on their face from the same transactions giving rise to the Complaint. Since no party has opposed this motion, no showing of bad faith has been made. Thus, Defendants are entitled to file their Cross-Complaint.

//

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

            Defendants shall file a clean, standalone copy of the Cross-Complaint within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 26, 2025                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.