On September 29, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Bean v. City of Thousand Oaks (B338497), holding that a co-defendant with an adverse interest can oppose a motion for summary judgment without having filed a cross-complaint against the moving party.
Plaintiff Bonnie Bean tripped and fell on a raised section of sidewalk in front of a Ventura County residence. She sued both the City of Thousand Oaks and Gina Goode, the owner of an adjacent property, alleging that tree roots from Goode’s yard caused a sidewalk defect.
Goode moved for summary judgment, arguing she neither created the dangerous condition nor owned or controlled the sidewalk. Bean did not oppose the motion. However, the City of Thousand Oaks filed an opposition. Before the hearing, the City also attempted to file a cross-complaint against Goode, but the clerk rejected it because the City did not first seek leave of court.
The trial court ruled that the City lacked standing to oppose Goode’s motion because it had not first filed a cross-complaint. Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment in Goode’s favor, considering the motion as unopposed.
The City appealed the trial court’s order, and the Court of Appeal held that the City had standing to oppose the motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2), provides that any party with an adverse interest – including a co-defendant – may oppose summary judgment, regardless of whether a cross-complaint has been filed. The court stressed California’s strong policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits over procedural technicalities. The Court of Appeal went further, holding that even if a cross-complaint was required, the City’s cross-complaint should have been deemed filed. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (b), leave of court is not required to file a cross-complaint against a co-defendant before a trial date is set.
Despite finding the City had standing to oppose the motion, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Goode on the merits. Applying the “Sidewalk Accident Decisions Doctrine” and relying on cases such as Williams v. Foster (1989), Jordan v. City of Sacramento (2007), and Jones v. Deeter (1984). The Court of Appeal reiterated that abutting property owners have no tort duty to repair public sidewalks or indemnify municipalities unless they created the defect or exercised control over the sidewalk.
Nonetheless, this published opinion provides important clarification that a defendant with an adverse interest to the moving party may oppose a motion for summary judgment without first filing a cross-complaint.
This document is intended to provide you with information about trending law related developments and news. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact the authors. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.