Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22CHLC10272, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHLC10272    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion Filed: 8/29/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Peter Bures, in pro per (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendant leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is off-calendar without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On 8/29/23, Defendant filed the instant motion. On 12/21/23, Plaintiff filed its opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

“A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint. … A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint…” (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.10.) If the proposed cross-complaint is permissive, leave of court may be granted “in the interest of justice” at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50, subd. (c).) On the other hand, if the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory, then leave must be granted so long as the defendant is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)

Here, it is unclear to the Court whether Defendant’s proposed cross-claims are permissive or compulsory, as Defendant has failed to indicate so in his moving papers. Moreover, Defendant has failed to attach a copy of the proposed cross-complaint to the instant motion. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to provide it with sufficient information to rule on the instant motion.

Additionally, the Defendant has again failed to comply with the Court rules on formatting. For example, “line numbers must be placed at the left margin and separated from the text by a vertical column of space at least 1/5 inch wide or a single or double vertical line. Each line number must be aligned with a line of type, or the line numbers must be evenly spaced vertically on the page. Line numbers must be consecutively numbered, beginning with the number 1 on each page. There must be at least three line numbers for every vertical inch on the page.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.108(4).)”

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has not met the preliminary procedural requirements to bring the instant motion. Accordingly, the motion is placed off-calendar.

CONCLUSION

The motion is off-calendar without prejudice.