Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JUNE 26, 2026
4. FEINBERG v. TRELLA TAHOE, INC., ET AL., 25CV0309
Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
On April 21, 2026, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, defendant
Albertsons Companies, Inc. (“Albertsons”) filed an amended motion for leave to file its
proposed cross-complaint against defendant Trella Tahoe, Inc. (“Trella”).
On June 4, 2026, Trella filed a timely opposition. On June 17, 2026, plaintiff James
Feinberg (“plaintiff”) filed a notice of non-opposition. Also on June 17, 2026, Albertsons
filed a timely reply.
1.
Background
On February 5, 2025, plaintiff filed this personal injury action against Trella,
Albertsons, and Nils Sten Ospenson II.
In a letter dated April 2, 2025, Albertsons requested Trella to tender its defense and
indemnify Albertsons in this action. (Norris Decl., Ex. F.) Albertsons’s letter is three
pages long, cites portions of the parties’ contract verbatim, and provides legal argument
in support of Albertsons’s requests. On May 2, 2025, Northfield Insurance Company
(Trella’s insurance company) denied Albertsons’s requests. (Norris Decl., Ex. G.)
On May 16, 2025, Albertsons filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint.
On October 8, 2025, the court set a jury trial for November 2, 2026.
On February 11, 2026, Albertsons sent Trella a renewed request for tender and
indemnification that included additional legal argument in response to Northfield’s
denial letter of May 2, 2025. (Norris Decl., Ex. H.) In the last paragraph of the letter,
Albertsons stated, “Please reply in writing by [sic] with your client’s response. If I have
not heard from you by close of business on February 18, 2026, I intend to seek leave of
court to file a cross-complaint against Trella Tahoe for express indemnity and breach of
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?”
contract.” (Norris Decl., Ex. H (original emphasis).)
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JUNE 26, 2026
Albertsons’s proposed cross-complaint against Trella asserts causes of action for
indemnification, contribution, and breach of contract. (Norris Decl., Ex. I.)
2. Legal Principles
Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides that a cross-complaint must be filed
before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or at any time before the
trial date is set. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subds. (a), (b).) Code of Civil Procedure
section 428.50, subdivision (c) requires that “[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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).)
Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court’s
discretion.8 (Orient Handel v. United States Fid. and Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701.) A cross-complaint filed against another defendant is permissive, not
compulsory. (American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Avco-Lycoming Division (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d
732, 735.)
3.
Discussion
Trella argues that Albertsons has not acted in good faith where its actions
demonstrate delay, tactical leverage, and lack of diligence. The court disagrees. The
evidence shows that, as early as April 2025 — less than two months after plaintiff’s filing
of the complaint, and before Albertsons filed its answer to complaint — Albertsons
made a good-faith effort to tender its defense and seek contribution from Trella.
In February 2026, Albertsons sent Trella a renewed request, which addressed the
reasons for denial that Northfield gave in its May 2, 2025, denial letter. The court finds
8 By contrast, if the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory, the trial court must grant
leave so long as the party filing the motion is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50; see Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.)
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JUNE 26, 2026
that allowing Albertsons to file its proposed cross-complaint against Trella is in the
interest of justice and so exercises its discretion to grant Albertsons’s motion.
TENTATIVE RULING # 4: THE MOTION IS GRANTED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER
WILL BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247), UNLESS A
NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED
ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT
AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR
IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE
HEARING.