Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00879, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00879    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing date:                          Wednesday, March 1, 2023

RE:                                          HECTOR OLAVARRIA, JR. vs DOE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. (22PSCV00879)

________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT EL MONTE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Responding Party: Unopposed as of 2/28 (due 2/15)

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT EL MONTE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT is GRANTED.

Background

This is a childhood sexual assault case. Plaintiff Hector Olavarria, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that during the 1987-1988 school year, his teacher at EL MONTE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT repeatedly sexually assaulted him.

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against DOE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity; DOE SCHOOL, a public entity; and DOES 1-50, inclusive for 1. Negligence 2. Negligence Per Se 3. Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision of an Unfit Employee 4. Negligent Supervision of a Minor 5. Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate.

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed his FAC.

On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed his SAC.

On November 16, 2022, Defendant El Monte Union High School District (“the School”) filed its Answer.

On February 1, 2023, the School filed the instant motion.

Legal Standard  

Generally, a party must 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(a).) 

The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint if the failure to plead a cause of action was the result of oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) Where the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint as long as defendant is acting in good faith. (Id.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit and discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 929.) 

A party may obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of a lawsuit, and leave may be granted in the interest of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50; see also Sidney v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 718.) 

“To the extent practicable, all supporting memorandums and declarations must be attached to the notice of motion.” (CRC Rule 3.1113(j).) 

Discussion

The School explains that when filing its Answer, it also filed its Cross-Complaint, but the cross-complaint was rejected. For two months, the School attempted to refile the cross-complaint, but the e-filing system would not accept the cross-complaints.

Here, the School can be at no fault for the e-filing systems technical glitches. Indeed, a review of the School’s exhibits indicates that it did in fact attempt to e-file the cross-complaint on 11/16/2022 at 1:40 pm but the filing was rejected. (Motion, Ex. 1, p. 19 of 40 of PDF.)

Therefore, though the motion does not fall within the purview of granting leave to amend because of a party’s oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause because it was the court’s electronic system that caused the problem, granting the motion would be in the interest of justice.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.