Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File A Cross-Complaint
Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY Calendar for Wednesday, Aug-05-2026. Line 2. DEFENDANTS JAMES NADEAU, and LISA NADEAU's Motion For Leave To File A Cross-Complaint.
Defendants James and Lisa Nadeau's motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against the Groths is denied. The proposed cross-complaint is a permissive cross-complaint for indemnity. (White Decl., Ex. A [Proposed Cross-Complaint, pars. 26, 34-35, 36-47].)
The bad faith standard of Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94 only applies to the proposed filing of a compulsory-cross complaint, not a permissive cross-complaint. "There are no compulsory cross-complaints against parties other than plaintiff." (The Rutter Group California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 6:524 (2025).)
The interests of justice weigh heavily against granting this motion. Denial of this motion does not prejudice the Nadeaus. There is no forfeiture as their right to indemnity has yet to accrue and they can file a separate action. (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."].)
Permitting the filing of the proposed cross-complaint at this stage of the litigation will prejudice plaintiff Thomas Henry. The trial is less than three weeks away. Even assuming the court has jurisdiction over the Groths, allowing the cross-complaint will inject new medical malpractice issues into this case and require further discovery and a trial continuance.
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/HEK) | |