Case Number: EC065345 Hearing Date: January 12, 2018 Dept: NCB

5. EC065345

GREAT AMERICAN INS. CO. OF NEW ORK v WATTS PREMIER, INC.

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

This case involves the Plaintiff’s claim that it has a right to recover subrogation for the amounts it paid to its insureds, Prakash Chandran and Archana Mohan, for a leaking water filter because the Defendants sold and installed the water filter.

Trial is set for June 25, 2018.

This hearing concerns the motion of the Defendants, Watts Premier, for leave to file a Cross-Complaint for an indemnity against a third party, Luis Rodriguez, because Mr. Rodriguez installed the water filter.

Under CCP section 428.50, the Court may grant leave to file a Cross-Complaint in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. Silver Orgs. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 94, 98-99.

A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless substantial evidence of bad faith is demonstrated. Id. Bad faith involves conduct, not prompted by an honest mistake, but by some sinister motive, not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. Id. Bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. Id.

CCP section 426.10 defines a cross-complaint as compulsory when its claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the claims in the Complaint. A review of the proposed Cross-Complaint in exhibit A to the motion reveals that it claims that the Defendant, Luis Rodriguez, is liable for the Plaintiff’s damages and that Mr. Rodriguez should indemnify the Defendants if they are found liable. The claims in the Cross-Complaint arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the claim in the Complaint regarding the Plaintiff’s claim for damages resulting from the leaking water filter. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion seeks leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint and it must be granted unless “substantial evidence of bad faith is demonstrated”.

No party has filed any opposition papers to offer substantial evidence that the Defendants sought leave to file the Cross-Complaint in bad faith or that the Defendants had some sinister motive or dishonest purpose.

Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion and grants leave to file the proposed Cross-Complaint.