Case Number: BC676185 Hearing Date: July 27, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Harvinder Sethi, Mehardeep Singh Sethi, and Gagandeep Singh Sethi

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2017, plaintiffs Jenny Delacruz and Juan Alvarez filed a complaint against defendants Harvinder Sethi, Mehardeep Singh Sethi, and Gagandeep Singh Sethi for motor vehicle negligence and loss of consortium based on a motor vehicle accident on April 13, 2016, on the westbound 60 freeway in Pomona.

Trial is set for March 15, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 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.”

“If the proposed cross-complaint is permissive . . ., leave of court may be granted ‘in the interest of justice’ at any time during the course of the action (CCP §428.50(c)). On the other hand, if the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory . . ., leave must be granted so long as defendant is acting in good faith (CCP §426.50 . . .).” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶6:555.

“The declarations of defendant’s counsel should show that it would be ‘in the interest of justice’ to grant leave to file; and some reasonable excuse why the cross-complaint was not filed earlier (mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect . . . or most commonly, recent discovery of new facts).” Id., ¶6:562.

“A greater showing of ‘interest of justice’ is required to obtain leave to file a cross-complaint against a codefendant or some third person not yet a party to the action. Here, the court will be concerned that the cross-complaint not unreasonable burden and complicate plaintiff’s lawsuit with cross-actions and third parties.” Id., ¶6:564.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request leave to file a cross-complaint against Daniel Valenzuela for implied and total indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault.

“Cross-complaints against third parties are permissive, not mandatory.” Id., ¶6:544. “There are no compulsory cross-complaints against parties other than plaintiff. Rather, the issue usually is whether a cross-complaint against such parties will be permissible.” Id., ¶6:524.

The court finds that the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same traffic collision as the cause of action in the complaint. “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.

The court finds that it would be in the interest of justice to allow defendants to file a cross-complaint and that defendants have a reasonable excuse why the cross-complaint was not filed earlier.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

The court orders that defendants are granted leave to file a cross-complaint against Daniel Valenzuela. Defendants are ordered to file their cross-complaint within five days.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 27, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court