Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV15173, Date: 2024-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15173 Hearing Date: August 22, 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
|
DEPT: |
32 |
|
HEARING DATE: |
August
22, 2024 |
|
CASE NUMBER: |
23STCV15173 |
|
MOTIONS: |
Motion
for Leave to File Cross-Complaint |
|
Defendants Daniel Raleigh Jennings and
Elizabeth Waters |
|
|
OPPOSING PARTY: |
Unopposed |
BACKGROUND
On
June 29, 2023, Plaintiff Gregory Adjian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Daniel Raleigh Jennings, Elizabeth Waters, and Does 1
to 20 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
October 15, 2022.
Defendants Daniel Raleigh Jennings and Elizabeth Waters (“Defendants”)
now move for leave to file a cross complaint against Socal Tire Distributor and
Roes 1 to 5. 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, he or she 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).) The
court must grant leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint so long as the defendant
is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)
A
party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint may file
a cross complaint setting forth “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person
alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to
the action, 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(b).)
DISCUSSION
The proposed cross-complaint
asserts the following causes of action against Socal Tire Distributor: contribution,
indemnity, and declaratory relief. (McNulty Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. B.) Defendants
contend that while driving on the 5 freeway, a white van owned by Socal Tire
Distributor veered into their lane, causing them to partially move into
Plaintiff’s lane. (Id. ¶ 2-4.)
Therefore, since the
cross-complaint arises out of the same occurrence in this action, the Court
finds that granting leave to file the cross-complaint would be in the interest
of justice. Therefore, the motion for leave is granted.
CONCLUSION AND
ORDER
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File a
Cross-Complaint. Defendants are ordered
to file and serve their proposed cross-complaint within ten (10) days of the
date of this Order.
Moving party shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of
service of such.