Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV30282, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30282    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff Consuelo Martinez filed this action against Defendant City of Covina (“Covina”).  Plaintiff alleges that on April 10, 2020, she fell into a hole created by the removal of a tree.  Covina filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against the abutting property owner, moving defendant Robert Raab (“Defendant”).  Defendant was then added to the main action as a Doe defendant. 

Defendant filed an answer to Covina’s Cross-Complaint on October 26, 2020 and to Plaintiff’s Complaint on December 31, 2020.  On July 1, 2022, Defendant filed this motion seeking leave to file a cross-complaint against Alberto Castro (“Castro”), who was allegedly retained by Defendant to perform the tree removal and improperly filled the ground where the tree was removed. 

On August 8, 2022, the Court continued the hearing so that Plaintiff could file an opposition brief and Defendant would have an opportunity to file a reply brief. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 428.50 (a).)  Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 428.50 (b).)  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.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 428.50 (c).)  Where the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction as a plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint so long as the defendant is acting in good faith.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 426.50.)

III.        DISCUSSION

On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief arguing that Defendant’s motion was inexcusably delayed and that allowing a new party would be prejudicial because it would require that Plaintiff submit to a second deposition session as well as additional discovery.  Plaintiff points out that the tree stump was removed in 2014 – six years before Plaintiff fell – and that Defendant was well-aware that Castro performed the removal.  Plaintiff claims Defendant is trying to delay a mediation that the parties were scheduled to attend. 

In his reply brief, Defendant argues that there is no intention to delay mediation and that it was made clear to Plaintiff’s counsel on two occasions in June 2022 that mediation would not go forward until Defendant looked into bringing Castro as a party.  Defendant further states that he identified Castro as well as his address and phone number in discovery responses served on December 28, 2020. 

The proposed cross-complaint arises from the same transaction as Plaintiff’s claim and, in spite of Plaintiff’s claims made in her opposition brief, the Court finds no indication that Defendant is acting in bad faith.  Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to file the proposed cross-complaint within 5 days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.