Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 43 118 Cal. Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608, 65 A.L.R.3d 878, held that a trial court correctly instructed the jury that "'a defendant in a malicious prosecution action cannot escape liability for the malicious prosecution of a claim for which he did not have probable cause by joining it with a claim for which he did have probable cause . . . .'" (13 Cal.3d at p. 55, fn. 4.) The Bertero court explained: "A plaintiff acting in good faith may safely sue on alternative theories after full disclosure to counsel when he possesses a reasonable belief in the validity of each of those theories. If his original pleading . . . advances a theory which subsequent research or discovery proves to be untenable the pleading may be amended. We see no reason for permitting plaintiffs and cross-complainants to pursue shotgun tactics by proceeding on counts and theories which they know or should know to be groundless." ( Id. at p. 57.) The Court stated: "For our purposes no sound reason appears for treating a cause of action initiated by a cross-pleading as only an integral part of that cause initiated by the complaint . . . . '. . . The Court has recognized that "these cross-actions . . . are still distinct and independent causes of action, so that when properly interposed and stated the defendant becomes in respect to the matters pleaded by him, an actor, and there are two simultaneous actions pending between the same parties wherein each is at the same time both a plaintiff and a defendant." ' In other instances case and statutory law recognize that a cross-pleading creates an action distinct and separate from an initial pleading. Dismissal of the complaint, for instance, does not affect the independent existence of the cross-complaint . . . ."