Rowell v. Transpacific Life Ins. Co.

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendants leave to file a cross-complaint to name new parties to an action. The proposed cross-complaint asserts theories of proportionate equitable indemnity pursuant to

American Motorcycle Assn.

v.

Superior Court

(1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 [146 CaI.Rptr. 182, 578 P.2d 899], While the case at

[820]

bar potentially involves the novel issue of the effect of the still developing pleading rules of proportionate equitable indemnity upon the principle of California procedure that holds that generally an order denying leave to file a cross-complaint against new parties is not appealable

(Miller

v.

Stein

(1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 381, 385-386 [302 P.2d 403]; but cf.

Keenan

v.

Dean

(1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 189 [285 P.2d 300]), the issue is not ripe. The proposed cross-complaint does not state a cause of action. Resolution of the issue of appealability must await a pleading which is legally sufficient.

Addressing the issue of the sufficiency of the cross-complaint, we conclude that the rationale of

Held

v.

Arant

(1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 748 [134 Cal.Rptr. 422] and

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

v.

Superior Court

(1979) ante, p. 347 [156 Cal.Rptr. 326] supports a trial court ruling denying leave to file the pleading.