Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc.

39 Citing cases

  1. Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Intern

    231 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 432 times
    Holding that dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate where "it is clear from the face of the complaint, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice, that the plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law" by claim preclusion

    Cal. Civ. P. Code § 428.50. Failure to file a timely cross-complaint results in a waiver and bar of that cause of action unless the trial court grants the defendant leave to file an untimely cross-complaint pursuant to § 426.50. See Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc., 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 791, 795 (1995); Gherman v. Colburn, 72 Cal.App.3d 544, 140 Cal.Rptr. 330, 339 (1977). Upon the defendant's motion, the trial court must grant leave to file an untimely cross-complaint if the defendant can demonstrate that his failure to plead was in good faith.

  2. Wittenberg v. Bornstein

    51 Cal.App.5th 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 27 times
    Finding courts are not required, and may properly decline, to consider arguments not raised in demurrer even if based on purely legal questions

    The compulsory cross-complaint statute is designed to prevent "piecemeal litigation." ( Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1436, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 791 ( Carroll ).) "The law abhors a multiplicity of actions, and the obvious intent of the Legislature in enacting the counterclaim statutes [citation] was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction. [Citation.] Thus, a party cannot by negligence or design withhold issues and litigate them in successive actions; he may not split his demands or defenses; he may not submit his case in piecemeal fashion."

  3. Velez v. Smith

    142 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 46 times
    Finding trial court did not err by declining to grant appellant's request to present testimonial evidence at hearing on motion to strike

    We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err by granting the motion to strike appellant's dissolution petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision (b). ( Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 791]; Lodi v. Lodi, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631.) III.

  4. Fuentes v. Arrendando

    No. B314314 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2024)

    The trial court followed Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429 (Carroll) in reaching this conclusion. Like Arrendando, the plaintiff in Carroll voluntarily dismissed his original complaint for contract rescission after the defendants filed cross-complaints for breach of contract arising out of the same underlying automobile trade-in transaction.

  5. Clean Up Am., Inc. v. Arrow Disposal Servs.

    No. B323729 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2024)

    California's compulsory cross-complaint rule prohibits a party from asserting a claim in a new lawsuit if, at the time the party answered a complaint in prior litigation, it "fail[ed] to allege in a cross-complaint any [then-existing,] related cause of action." (§ 426.30, subd. (a); Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 952 (Align Technology).) The rule "is designed to prevent 'piecemeal litigation,'" because the "'law abhors a multiplicity of actions.'" (Align Technology, at p. 959; Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1436 (Carroll); Heshejin v. Rostami (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 984, 993.) The rule operates as an affirmative defense and completely disposes of a claim or entire action to which it applies.

  6. JP Builders, Inc. v. Leebove

    A130270 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2011)

    As such, it had to be filed in the action initiated by Contractor to avoid multiplicity of litigation. (§ 426.30; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 1177, pp. 607-609; see Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437 (Carroll).)When Homeowners dismissed their cross-complaint, the only action in which they could file the second cross-complaint was the action initiated by Contractor. (Cf. Carroll, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1436-1437 [plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint after cross-complaint was filed; court held he could not file new action, but should have filed a compulsory cross-complaint in the initial action]; Hill v. City ofClovis (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 434, 445 [compulsory cross-complaint is "required to be brought and adjudicated in the action initiated by the plaintiff'].)

  7. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 80 times
    Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

    The compulsory cross-complaint statute is designed to prevent "piecemeal litigation." ( Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1436 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 791].) In discussing the legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30, the Supreme Court explained that because "[t]he law abhors a multiplicity of actions . . . the obvious intent of the Legislature . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction. [Citation.] Thus, a party cannot by negligence or design withhold issues and litigate them in successive actions; he may not split his demands or defenses; he may not submit his case in piecemeal fashion.

  8. Global Reach Investment Corporation v. Burlingame Investment Corporation

    No. A120324 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2009)

    Global Reach also argues that if BIC defeats the separate action brought by GRC to collect on the notes, it can claim all its fees, including those it incurred in securing the dismissal of this case. But there is no assurance that BICs efforts in this case will be considered to have been necessarily incurred in a successful defense of the action brought by GRC. (See Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437-1439.) Civil Code section 1717 provides "the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract," and directs the trial court to "determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment."

  9. Chao v. Shannon

    No. B195000 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2008)

    By failing to prosecute these causes of action via cross-complaint in SC083493, Chao forfeited them. Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30; Carroll v. Import Motors[, Inc.] (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1435-38.”

  10. O'Brien v. Patel

    No. G037844 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2008)

    The compulsory cross-complaint requirement reflects “the strict policy against multiplicity of litigation” and prohibits “piecemeal litigation.” (Carroll v. Import Motors, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1435, 1436 (Carroll).) Section 426.30, subdivision (a), provides, “if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.”