SANDRA BERUMEN, ET AL. VS ALEXANDRA JUDITH CAMPBELL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC11582    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 26

Berumen, et al. v. Campbell, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

(CCP § 428.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Alexandra Judith Campbell’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. CROSS-COMPLAINT TO BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Sandra Berumen and Sophia Pineda (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Alexandra Judith Campbell (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on December 11, 2018. Trial thereafter was continued multiple times.

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint on June 9, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides:

“(a) 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.

(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

(c) 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)

Furthermore, “[a] party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50, emphasis added.)

The Court of Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. 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. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.) “‘‘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. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 100.)  

Discussion

This Motion is brought pursuant to subdivision (c), which “addresses all other cross-complaints and provides that they can only be filed with leave of court which may be granted ‘in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.’ [Citation.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).) Defendant moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint against proposed Cross Defendant Katherine Goldsich (“Goldsich”) on the grounds that Goldsich “in whole or in part caused a portion of Plaintiffs’ claimed damages.” (Motion, Johnson Decl., ¶5.) The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges apportionment of fault, indemnification and declaratory relief against Goldsich. (Id. at Exh. A.)

The Motion minimally demonstrates that the proposed cross-claims against Goldsich arise from the same operative facts as the claims in the Complaint. Namely, all the claims arise out of the motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 17, 2016 involving Plaintiffs and Defendant. (Ibid.) There are nothing to show that Defendant’s request for leave to file the Cross-Complaint is brought in bad faith.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. The Cross-Complaint is to be filed within 20 days’ notice of order.

Moving party to give notice.