Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV09299, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09299    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, TR (“Plaintiff”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Niloofar Rabbani, filed this action against Defendants, Encino Place, LP and Encino Place, LLC, Elevators Etc., Inc., and Elevators Etc. Gs Inc. for injuries Plaintiff sustained when her left hand became entrapped inside an escalator.  The complaint alleges that Encino Place, LP and Encino Place, LLC owned the property where the incident occurred, and that Elevators Etc., Inc., and Elevators Etc. Gs Inc. were contracted to perform the necessary maintenance and service for the escalators at the property. 

On November 3, 2021, Elevators Etc. Inc. (“Elevators”) filed a cross-complaint against Encino Place, LP, Encino Place, LLC, and Niloofar Rabbani alleging causes of action for (1) express indemnity, (2) equitable indemnity, (3) negligence, (4) apportionment of fault/contribution, and (5) declaratory relief.  On November 23, 2021, Elevators filed its operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) adding Kamran Rabbani as a cross-defendant and asserting the same five causes of action as above against the cross-defendants.

At this time, Encino Place, LP and Encino Place, LLC (collectively, “Encino”) move for judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action for express indemnity in Elevators’ cross-complaint.  Elevators opposes the motion, and Encino filed a reply. 

Encino contends that Elevators is relying on a provision in its service contract with Encino in stating a claim for express indemnity against Encino.  Encino argues that the provision cannot reasonably be construed to give rise to an indemnity obligation in this case, as there is no provision in the agreement by which Encino agrees to indemnify Elevators for any alleged negligence on Encino’s part in managing its premises.

However, for reasons that are unclear, Encino is moving for judgment on the pleadings as to Elevators’ original cross-complaint and not as to Elevators’ FACC.  Encino attaches a copy of the original cross-complaint.  (Mot. Rosner Decl. Exh. A.)  Elevators, in opposition, similarly references its cross-complaint filed on November 3, 2021, with no mention of its FACC.  Notably, in moving for judgment on the pleadings, Encino references a written agreement that was attached to the original cross-complaint but not the FACC. 

There may be only one operative complaint in a civil action.  An amended pleading supersedes all prior complaints, which cease to have any effect as a pleading.  (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1130-31; Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884 [“ ‘It is well established that an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.’ ”].)  Because there can be only one operative pleading, “the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.” (State Comp. Ins. Fund, 84 Cal.App.4th at 1131.) 

Accordingly, Elevators’ FACC superseded its original cross-complaint, so Encino’s motion directed at the original cross-complaint is improper.  Therefore, Encino’s motion is denied.  The denial is without prejudice to Encino refiling a motion directed at Elevators’ FACC or other operative pleading. 

Encino 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 25^th day of August 2022