| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO To File Defendants Ongaro Pc And David Ongaro'S Cross-Complaint
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, May 05, 2026, Line 3.
Defendant/Cross-complainant's motion to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. The proposed cross-complaint is compulsory, and Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 governs this motion. Section 426.50 has been interpreted as requiring the court to grant leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint absent bad faith. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99 ["Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith."].)
The law strongly favors granting leave as compulsory claims are barred if not pleaded in the underlying case. The principle of liberality in section 426.50 "requires that a strong showing of bad faith be made in order to support a denial of the right to file a cross-complaint[i]t is preferable that the parties have their day in court." (Sidney v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 718.)
Plaintiffs have not met the very high burden of establishing bad faith. Movant's clumsy filings are not tantamount to bad faith. Delay in filing a cross-complaint is not sufficient to establish bad faith, unless the filing of the cross-complaint would "work a substantial injustice to the opposing party and would prejudice the opposing party's position in some way." (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court. (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 903.) The evidence does not establish substantial injustice or prejudice. Plaintiff's claims of malpractice are intimately related to movant's claim for fees; the cross-complaint will not greatly expand the present issues in this case. The court notes that movant served plaintiff with a copy of the cross-complaint months ago, has attempted to file it numerous times, and the filing is not a bolt from the blue.
Lastly, the court denies plaintiff's proposed conditions and plaintiff may attack movant's reference to the prior non-binding fee arbitration award by subsequent motion. Movant shall file the proposed cross-complaint within 5 days of entry of this order.
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?”
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) 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.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@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 contestdept302tr@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 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. =(302/JMQ) | |