Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Cross-Complaint
Matter on calendar for Friday, July 10, 2026, Line 7, DEFENDANT THE NEW WHEEL, INC.'s Motion For Leave To File Cross-Complaint.
1 - Defendant The New Wheel's motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is DENIED. Movant's citation CCP 426.50 and the bad faith standard of Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94 is off point. The proposed cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, implied indemnity, negligence, contribution, and declaratory relief is a permissive cross-complaint subject to the requirements of CCP 428.10. "To be considered a compulsory cross-complaint, a related cause of action must have existed at the time of the service of [the] answer." (Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)
The proposed indemnity claims have yet to accrue. (See Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1541 ["a tort defendant's equitable indemnity action is separate and distinct from the plaintiff's tort action against the defendant and does not arise for statute of limitations purposes until the defendant pays a judgment or settlement for which he is entitled to indemnity"]; Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1209 ["a defendant may pursue a comparative equitable indemnity claim against other tortfeasors either (1) by filing a cross-complaint in the original tort action or (2) by filing a separate indemnity action after paying more than its proportionate share of the damages through the satisfaction of a judgment or through a payment in settlement."].)
In addition, "[t]here are no compulsory cross-complaints against parties other than plaintiff." (The Rutter Group California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 6:524 (2025).) Tjarko Leifer is presently not a party to this case.
In the interests of justice, the motion is denied. Allowing the cross-complaint will lead to a trial delay. Lastly, movant is not prejudiced. It can argue comparative fault at trial. It can also bring an independent action for indemnity.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CM). |