Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING FOR JULY 20, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Earth Tek Engineering Corp, et al v. A&I Rock Co. Inc. – CIVRS2401384 Motion: Leave to File Cross-Complaint Movant: Defendants A & I Rock Co., Inc. and Intravaia Rock & Sand, Inc. Respondent: Plaintiff Earth Tek Engineering Corporation Ruling: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. The Court accepts the proposed Cross-Complaint as filed and served. Defendants to provide Order and give notice. ______________________________________________________________________________
Intravaia motions under section 428.50 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to file the proposed Cross-Complaint, which is attached to the instant Motion. Intravaia argues under Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94 (Silver), a trial court generally must allow the filing of a cross-complaint unless the moving party's bad faith is demonstrated and here, there is no bad faith. Intravaia contends while it has taken “some time” for Defendants to ascertain the facts necessary to adequately plead the proposed Cross-Complaint, there is no surprise or prejudice to the Plaintiff as the basis for Intravaia’s Cross-Complaint was set forth in its Responses to Form Interrogatories, which were served months before Defendants filed their Answer.
In its Opposition, Plaintiff argues Intravaia fails to establish the requisite good faith and instead, the evidence shows that Intravaia’s motives in filing this motion are in bad faith. Plaintiff argues Intravaia should have filed the proposed Cross-Complaint approximately 18 months ago and instead waited until Plaintiff had already conducted discovery and trial was imminent. Plaintiff contends Defendants have engaged in improper tactical delay throughout this litigation, including only proceeding with the “meet and confer” process on the day the responsive pleading was due and continuing to delay pushing out the response time. Further, Plaintiff contends it will be prejudiced by the filing of the instant Cross-Complaint as it will now be forced to re-expend attorneys’ fees to re-conduct discovery on Intravaia’s “new” claims.
Intravaia replies, arguing first that Plaintiff vastly overstates the alleged delay in Intravaia filing its Cross-Complaint as Defendants did not file their Answer until December 29, 2025, and as such, any delay in filing the instant Motion is, at most, approximately six months. As for Plaintiff’s contention that it has been prejudiced by Intravaia’s delay and will need to re-conduct discovery on of the Intravaia’s new claims, Intravaia argues the instant action is not an expertdriven case and there is ample time for written discovery and witness depositions.
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?”
There is no dispute that the proposed Cross-Complaint contains compulsory claims arising from the same transactions and occurrences at-issue in the Complaint and as such section 426.50 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies and the instant motion should be granted absent bad faith. (Silver, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 98-99). The late filing of the motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint absent some evidence of bad faith is insufficient evidence to support d enial of the motion. (Id. at 101.) While an admittedly amorphous concept, bad faith implies or involves actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or
refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake, but by some interested or sinister motive. (Id. at 100.)
Here, there is no evidence before this court that supports a finding that the delay in filing the instant motion was due to bad faith. (Id. at 97). Plaintiff provides no evidence to support its speculation of bad faith and Intravaia’s argument that any delay is limited as Defendants’ Answer was only filed seven months ago in December of 2025 is well taken.
For these reasons, the Court grants Intravaia’s Motion and accepts the proposed Cross- Complaint as filed and served.
Dated: July 20, 2026
____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson
2