2012-00120958-CL-CL

Subhash Amanaganti vs. Innovative Government Inc

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File Cross-Complaint

Filed By: Kirkpatrick, Matthew J.

If any party requests oral argument, then the hearing will take place on Tuesday, June
10, 2014, at 9:00AM in this department. Any party seeking oral argument must still
make a telephonic request pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(B).

The motion of Defendant Innovative Government, Inc. (“Defendant”) for leave to file a
cross-complaint is GRANTED.

This limited civil action arises from a dispute between Plaintiff Subhash Amanaganti
(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant over a contract dated September 29, 2010. (Kirkpatrick
Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 21, 2012. After Plaintiff completed
discovery in early 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel stipulated to allow
Defendant to file a cross-complaint. (Opp. at 1) Defendant did not promptly file the cross-complaint. On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Limited Civil Case Status
Memorandum. (Opp. at 2.) In mid-April 2014, Defendant’s counsel requested a new
stipulation to file a cross-complaint, which was denied by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Opp. p.
2.) This motion follows.

CCP § 426.50 provides that when a party fails to plead a cause of action, “whether
through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, [the party] may
apply to the court for leave … to file a cross-complaint.” The court “shall grant, upon
such terms as may be just to the parties, leave … to file a cross-complaint … 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.” (CCP § 426.50 [ellipses
added].)

“The legislative mandate is clear … 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 [emphasis
added].)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion should be denied because
Defendant has not acted in good faith or diligently. Before a trial court denies a motion
for leave to file a cross-complaint, there must be substantial evidence that bad faith
existed. (Id. at 99.) In other words, there must be substantial evidence of “dishonest
purpose, moral obliquity, sinister motive, furtive design or ill will.” (Id. at 100.)

Notwithstanding that Defendant could have been more diligent in filing a cross-
complaint after both parties stipulated to allow it to do so, the court finds that
Defendant has not acted with “dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, sinister motive,
furtive design or ill will.” (Id.) Moreover, no trial date has been set.

Given the above, the court agrees with Defendant that leave to file the cross-complaint
should be granted.

The court need not address and does not address Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections.
The court has only considered admissible evidence in making its ruling.

No later than June 19, 2014, Defendant may file and serve the cross-complaint;
Plaintiff to file and serve his responsive pleading(s) within 10 days thereafter, 15 days
if the cross-complaint is served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule
of court, Defendant is requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the
cross-complaint to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

The clerk of the court will not file the cross-complaint attached to the moving
papers as an exhibit.

To the extent Defendant wishes to reclassify the case as an unlimited one, it is
advised to consult CCP § 403.060 regarding payment of the reclassification fee.