MILLER KELLEY ARCHITECTS, INC. VS. ROBERTO ALONSO BETANCORT ET AL
MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
Off calendar. Defendant seeks to strike the complaint pursuant to CCP 435. Defendant fails to provide a declaration in compliance with CCP 435.5(a) showing a "meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference." The court orders the parties to comply with the code and meet and confer. The court notes that plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint set for June 5, 2026, in a related case (CGC-25-629608). The court rarely denies motions to file compulsory cross-complaints. CCP 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 CCP 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.) 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 trial date in the related case is presently April 5, 2027. Even if there were delay, the court cannot imagine any salient prejudice given the current trial date. Reasonable counsel should be able to resolve this matter without court intervention, e.g., voluntary dismissal of this action and stipulate to the filing of the compulsory cross-complaint in the related case. Defendant's response to the complaint in this action is now due by June 15, 2026.
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.