Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc's Motion for Relief Under CCP 473(b)
A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him. Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 428.50(b).
The existing parties' proposed parties and claims are interconnected. Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 428.10 permits a party to an action to file a cross complaint against other than parties to the action at any time before the court has set a date for trial but requires leave to be obtained from the court and to be granted in the interest of justice. This rule imposes discretion in the court.”(City of Sacramento v. Superior Court in and for Sacramento County (1962), 205 Cal.App.2d 398.)
Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 426.50 also permits a party who fails to plead a cause of action whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, to apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court shall grant leave after notice to the adverse party upon such terms as may be just if the moving party acted in good faith.
Leave of the court to file a cross complaint is also required where a trial has been set.” Loney v. Superior Court (Moneta) 1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 719). Trial has been set here for May 2027 and leave of the court is thus required to file a cross complaint.
In Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, the Court held that a motion to file a cross complaint at any time during the course of an action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated, where forfeiture would otherwise result. The court finds that no indication of bad faith exists here.
A successful application must be supported by the proposed cross-complaint. Defendant's proposed cross complaint is attached to their application herein. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is granted. Defendants are hereby granted leave to join Mozingo Construction Inc. to this action within seven (7) days from the date of service of this order. Defendants shall submit a Proposed Order conforming to the Court's ruling no later than August 21, 2026.
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?”
CV-24-007318 - TOPETE, JAIME vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc's Motion for Relief Under CCP 473(b) - DENIED.
Defendant has not met its burden to establish entitlement to discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). Although Defendant characterizes the $79,644.83 settlement amount in the accepted section 998 offer as an inadvertent drafting error, Defendant admits that no specific monetary figure was discussed or agreed upon before the offer was served. The written section 998 offer drafted and served by Defendant was accepted by Plaintiffs on December 30, 2025. Defendant's showing does not include contemporaneous documentation establishing that $39,822.41 was the authorized or agreed amount before the offer was served.
While Defendant's motion is timely filed, relative to Defendant's claim that the erroneous offer was discovered shortly after Plaintiff's December 30, 2025, acceptance, Defendant has not shown timely action in revoking the offer. The record contains competing evidence concerning when Defendant first advised Plaintiffs that it intended to vacate the settlement. Plaintiffs' evidence includes an April 16, 2026, email referencing a March 19, 2026, discussion regarding vacating the settlement, while the written record also shows post-acceptance communications concerning settlement performance and vehicle surrender up until April 15, 2026. On this record, Defendant has not established reasonable diligence.
"Where the mistake is excusable and the party seeking relief has been diligent, courts have often granted relief pursuant to the discretionary relief provision of section 473 if no prejudice to the opposing party will ensue." Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002), 28 Cal.4 th 249,258. Plaintiffs assert a loss of their prevailing party status and their related entitlement to attorney fees on the motion they have filed in that regard. No such motion presently appears on the court files. Plaintiffs are prejudiced by a forfeiture of their March 2026, trial date and a return of this matter to calendar for trial under circumstances where Plaintiffs had been given the impression that the case was settled.
Defendant has also not established grounds for rescission under Civil Code section 1689(b). Civil Code section 1689(b) permits rescission when consent was given by mistake. However, where the plaintiff has no reason to know of and does not cause the defendant's unilateral mistake of fact, the defendant must establish the following facts to obtain rescission of the contract: (1) that defendant made a mistake regarding a basic assumption upon which the defendant made the contract, (2) that the mistake has a material effect upon the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to the defendant, (3) that the defendant does not bear the risk of the mistake, and (4) the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable. Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261 as modified (Sept. 12, 2001).
The alleged mistake concerns a monetary term selected and inserted by Defendant in its own statutory offer. Defendant has not shown that Plaintiffs caused or knew of the alleged mistake, that Defendant did not bear the risk of the mistake, or that enforcement would be unconscionable. Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261 as modified (Sept. 12, 2001; Reed v. Williamson (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 244; Civ. Code, Sec. 1654; Westmoreland v. Kindercare Education LLC (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 967.
Notably, Plaintiff's sued for recission of the vehicle purchase contract and for damages as well as a double civil penalty. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's section 998 offer essentially provided for a statutory repurchase and a one-time civil penalty ahead of a looming trial date is not unheard of and Defendant's do not dispute this.
Finally, in reforming a written agreement, a court may transpose, reject, or supply words, but has no power to make new contracts for the parties; rather, the court may only reform the writing to conform with the mutual understanding of the parties at the time they entered into it, if such an understanding exists. (Hess v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516). Defendants have not demonstrated that the parties had an understanding regarding Defendant's revised section 998 offer. Therefore, the Court declines to substitute Defendant's June 15, 2026, revised section 998 offer for the accepted December 29, 2025, offer, as Plaintiffs did not accept the revised offer. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied.
CV-25-004133 - MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC vs FIGUEROA, MONICA - Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice.
Defendant's Counsel Alexander Penley of Cordoba Legal Group fails to check the required boxes on his supporting declaration, Form MC-52, affirming that counsel has confirmed his client's address within the last 30 days or has been unable to confirm the client's address. Counsel also failed to check whether trial has been set in this matter, and if so, the date for which trial has been set. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1362(d). The 30-day confirmation requirement is substantive, not merely technical and places an affirmative investigative obligation on counsel before filing the motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CV-26-000068 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS TYLER vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO - a) Defendant's Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. b) Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.
a-b) The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings. Therefore, this matter is continued to August 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court to be heard with defendant Doctor's Medical Center of Modesto's Demurrer and Motion to Strike.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***