Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV36726, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36726    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Maria Berberyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Palvi Sharma, Munish Sharma, Nathan John Gregory, and Kristen Gregory for damages arising from two motor vehicle accidents.  Defendants Palvi Sharma and Munish Sharma (the “Sharmas”) filed a general denial to the complaint on February 14, 2022.   

At this time, the Sharmas seek to file a cross-complaint against Nathan John Gregory and Kristen Gregory (the “Gregorys”) for apportionment of fault, indemnification and declaratory relief.  The motion is unopposed. 

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, the Sharmas assert that Plaintiff’s complaint is seeking damages for two separate vehicle accidents- one involving he Sharmas and another involving the Gregorys.  The Sharmas contend the cross-complaint is necessary to determine the apportionment of fault between the Sharmas and the Gregorys for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, as the Sharmas’ aver that the Gregorys are wholly liable for Plaintiff’s claimed damages.  The Sharmas argue no party will be prejudiced by the filing of the proposed cross-complaint.  The motion is unopposed.

The Sharmas’ cross-complaint arises from the same injuries at issue in Plaintiff’s complaint, and the Sharmas claims against the Gregorys should be litigated together in this action.  Furthermore, trial is not currently scheduled until April 4, 2023, giving the Gregorys time to prepare for trial. 

Defendants the Sharmas’ motion for leave to file cross-complaint is granted.  The Sharmas are ordered to file a separate copy of their cross-complaint within five (5) days.

Moving Defendants are 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 17^th day of August 2022