| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
By Defendants Albertsons Companies, Inc. and Madison Realty LLC for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
(35) Tentative Ruling
Re: Tomik v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. et al. Superior Court Case No. 23CECG05182
Hearing Date: May 19, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: By Defendants Albertsons Companies, Inc. and Madison Realty LLC for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
Tentative Ruling:
To grant. Defendants Albertsons Companies, Inc. and Madison Realty LLC shall serve and file their cross-complaint within 10 days of the date of service of this order.
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, May 28, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.
Explanation:
Defendants Albertsons Companies, Inc. and Madison Realty LLC (together “Defendants”) seeks leave to file a cross-complaint to state a claim against crosscomplainant Paynter Realty & Investments, Inc. and nonparty Citywide Property Services, Inc. (together “Proposed Cross-Defendants”) for indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50.
Defendants contend that they seeks to state a claim against Proposed Cross- Defendants for issues arising out of the same facts and incidents alleged by plaintiff Cindy Jean Tomik in the First Amended Complaint. As Defendants seek to state a claim against an existing party, related to the party’s causes of action, the cross-complaint is compulsory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a).)
Where a proposed cross-complaint is compulsory and seeks to state a claim against an existing party after the time to file an answer has passed, Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 controls. Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 states that:
A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may 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, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.
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?”
What constitutes good faith, or a lack of it under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 must be determined in light of and in conformity with great liberality. (Foot’s 8
Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 902.) A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. (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. (Ibid.) The showing of bad faith must be strong. (Foot’s Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 114 Cal.App.3d at p. 902.)
Here, there is no evidence of bad faith. Defendants submit that discovery recently confirmed their claims against Proposed Cross-Defendants. There does not appear to be any real likelihood of prejudice if the motion is granted. It does not appear as if the filing of the proposed cross-complaint will delay the case. No opposition was filed.
For the above reasons, the motion for leave is granted. Defendants may file their cross-complaint within 10 days of service of this order.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: lmg on 5/18/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
9