Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV24892, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24892    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Sofrone Grassu (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Restaurant Depot, LLC (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained when he was struck by a forklift while a patron at Defendant’s warehouse.  Defendant filed its answer on August 21, 2020.   

At this time, Defendant seeks to file a cross-complaint against Grecos Tarzana, L.L.C. dba Greco’s New York Pizzeria Tarzana (“Grecos Tarzana”), Best New York Pizza, Inc. dba Grecos New York Pizzeria Hollywood (“Best New York Pizza”), and Roes 1 to 10 for breach of contract, express indemnity, declaratory relief, equitable indemnity, and contribution.  The motion is unopposed. 

2. Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

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.  (CCP §§ 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.  (CCP §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.  (CCP §§ 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.  §428.50(c).

Here, Defendant asserts that at the time of the incident, Plaintiff was shopping at Defendant’s warehouse on behalf of Grecos Tarzana and Best New York Pizzeria (“Cross-Defendants”) and was shopping using Cross-Defendants’ membership with Defendant.  Defendant provides that under the written terms and conditions of Cross-Defendants’ membership, Cross-Defendants are required to defend and indemnify Defendant for negligence caused by anyone using its membership.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff caused or contributed to the incident, so Cross-Defendants’ defense and indemnity obligations have been triggered by Plaintiff’s negligence.  Defendant states that Cross-Defendants have refused to defend and indemnify Defendant. 

The complaint and cross-complaint arise from the same incident and should be litigated together.  There is no evidence Defendant has been dilatory in seeking to file the cross-complaint, and Defendant avers there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff by granting the motion.  Further, trial is currently scheduled for July 3, 2023, such that Cross-Defendants will have sufficient time to file a response to the cross-complaint and prepare for trial.    

Defendant’s motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is granted.  Defendant is ordered to file a separate copy of the cross-complaint within five days and serve the cross-complaint pursuant to Code. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 13^th day of December 2022