Case Number: 19STCV09340 Hearing Date: January 15, 2020 Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff Edvin Boghozian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant W.H.B.T., Inc. dba Mickey’s West Hollywood (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges negligence and premises liability for Defendant’s patron attacking Plaintiff with a glass cup on April 23, 2017.

On December 10, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Salvador Sotelo pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50.

Trial is set for September 14, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to grant leave for Defendant file a cross-complaint against Salvador Sotelo to allege equitable indemnity, apportionment, contribution, total indemnity, and declaratory relief.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 states, “(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.”

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) A related cause of action is “. . . a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).) Leave must be granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in good faith. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)

“Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.” (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that its cross-complaint arises from the same series of transactions or occurrences as Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained at Defendant’s premises from a patron attacking Plaintiff with a glass cup. (Compl., p. 4.) Defendant seeks equitable indemnity, apportionment, contribution, total indemnity, and declaratory relief against Salvador Sotelo because Mr. Sotelo has been identified as the assailant. (Herme Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

The Court finds that Defendant’s proposed cross-complaint arises from the same transactions and occurrences as Plaintiff’s complaint. As such, the Court is required to grant the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.) There is no opposition to this motion.

The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve the proposed-cross complaint attached as Exhibit A to Lisa Herme’s declaration within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.