Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV37981, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37981    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff Barrett Business Services, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendants Kevin Green, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Does 1 through 100.

On September 27, 2022, Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, erroneously sued and served as CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant”), filed an answer. On the same date, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Single Source Security, Inc.

On May 31, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Larisa Notkin, individually and doing business as Secure Plus Services. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.)  Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date.  (Code Civ. Proc. §428.50(b).)   

If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, they must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).)  Leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith.  (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)  Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50(c).)         

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant seeks to file a cross complaint against Larisa Notkin, individually and doing business as Secure Plus Services, alleging causes of action for indemnity, contribution/ apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. The complaint and cross-complaint arise from the same incident and should be litigated together. There does not appear to be prejudice to any party by the filing of the cross-complaint. Accordingly, the Court finds it to be in the interests of justice to grant leave to file a cross-complaint.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.  Defendant is ordered to file and serve the cross-complaint within 10 days.

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.