Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV01054, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01054    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion Filed: 9/20/24                                                                                    Jury Trial: 8/18/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Hrair Darakjian, an individual; and Hrair Darakjian and Nadia Darakjian, as Trustees of the Darakjian Family Trust (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendants leave to file a cross-complaint against nonparty Managed Rehab Care, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Defendants to separately file their proposed Cross-Complaint within 20 days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff Alma Rosa Armenta Rojas alleges that on 4/20/22, she “was exiting the subject premises when she stepped on an uneven, defective and/or deteriorated carpet and/or mat and/or rug on the floor causing her to trip and fall.” (FAC ¶ 11.) Defendants allegedly own and operate the subject premises, located at 23734 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA 91355. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

On 4/12/23, Plaintiff filed her original complaint, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) General Negligence; and (2) Premises Liability. On 1/19/24, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging the same causes of action against Defendants. On 3/22/24, Defendants filed their answer.

On 9/20/24, Defendants filed the instant motion. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A defendant or cross-defendant may file a cross-complaint against a nonparty “if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.10, subd. (b).) 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, while Defendants do not specify whether their proposed cross-complaint is permissive or compulsory, they contend that leave to file its cross-complaint should be granted under statutes for either form. Defendants argue that proposed cross-defendant “Managed Care Rehab, Inc. leased the subject premises pursuant to a written lease with Defendants. The lease requires Managed Care Rehab, Inc. to defend and indemnify Defendants in actions such as that filed by Plaintiff. Managed Care Rehab, Inc. has failed and refused to do so.” (Defs.’ Mot. 3:11– 3.)

Defendants’ proposed cross-complaint alleges against Managed Care Rehab, Inc. the following causes of action: (1) Express Indemnity; (2) Contribution; and (3) Declaratory Relief. (Ex. A to Decl. of Amy L. Powers.) The Court notes that no opposition has been filed against the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are acting in good faith, and therefore, in the interest of justice, may file their proposed cross-complaint against Managed Care Rehab, Inc.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Defendants to separately file their proposed Cross-Complaint within 20 days of this order.