Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01094, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01094    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

DUC TRI NGUYEN,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

GABRIEL ORTEGA,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 23AHCV01094

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT GABRIEL ORTEGA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

September 12, 2023

 

On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff Duc Tri Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Gabriel Ortega (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 10, 2022.  Defendant filed an Answer on June 26, 2023. 

On August 14, 2023, Defendant filed this Motion seeking leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.  On August 25, 2023, and September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “reply” and “amended reply” brief.

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 plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint so long as defendant is acting in good faith.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 426.50.) 

Defendant explains that his failure to file a cross-complaint earlier was due to a miscommunication between his attorneys regarding the appropriate date to file a responsive pleading.  (Sohovich Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Watkins Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)  Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s cross-complaint is barred due to the equitable defense of laches.  (Amended Reply, pp. 1-2.)  This argument is unpersuasive because there is a delay of only two months between the filing of the Answer and this motion.  Plaintiff also argues that Defendant is not acting in good faith because Defendant has not submitted a demand to Plaintiff’s insurance carrier for bodily injury and because Plaintiff is relatively judgment proof.  (Ibid.)  These issues may reflect the practical limitations of litigation, but do not rise to the level of “bad faith” as to allow the Court to deny leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint. 

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.

Dated this 12th  day of September 2023

 

 

 

 

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.