Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV04259, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV04259 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: 28
Cross-Defendant SVI, LAX, LLC’s Motion to Quash Amendment to Cross-Complaint
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2019, Plaintiff Ellis Garrett Marshall (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants SVI, LAX, LLC (“SVI”), Marriott International, Inc. (“Marriot”), Koar Airport Associates (“KAA”), Koar International Airport Center, LLC. (“KIAC LLC”), and Koar International Airport Center, L.P. (“KIAC LP”) for negligence and premises liability. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Browning Fire Protection Inc. (“BFP”) and R.D. Olson Constructions (“RDOC”).
On July 15, 2019, SVI, Marriott, KAA and KIAC LP filed their answer and a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 50. On May 27, 2020, they amended the Cross-Complaint to include RDOC and BFP as Cross-Defendants. On August 28, 2020, RDOC Answered the Cross-Complaint.
RDOC filed its answer on April 30, 2020. On November 24, 2021, RDOC was dismissed from SVI’s Cross-Complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to the Cross-Complainants request. On November 29, 2021, the Court dismissed RDOC from the complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On December 26, 2020, BFP filed its answer and a Cross-Complaint against Moes 1 through 50.
On January 3, 2022, KIAC LP was dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On January 25, 2022, Marriott was dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On March 1, 2023, SVI filed a Motion to Quash Amendment to Cross-Complaint to be heard on April 18, 2023.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 1, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
SVI requests the Court dismiss, strike, deny or quash BFP’s amendment to Cross-Complaint identifying SVI as MOE 1.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP § 474 provides that upon learning the identity of a defendant, “the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly.”
[T]he trial court is vested with broad discretion when presented with a motion for leave to file an amended pleading and may consider such factors as whether the proffered pleading states facts which could have been pleaded earlier, and whether a party has established a reasonable excuse for the delay.” (A.N. v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067.)
DISCUSSION
SVI’s motion is based upon an alleged amendment that occurred on February 24, 2023, in which BFP amended the Cross-Complaint identifying SVI as MOE 1. In reviewing the Court’s record, there is no record of any such amendment being made. According to the Court’s record, BFP has made no amendments to the Cross-Complaint. BFP has also not filed a motion for leave to amend said cross-complaint. The only relevant cross-defendants are “MOES 1 through 50, inclusive.” The Court cannot quash, strike or deny an amendment that has not been made according to the Court record. The motion is moot.
CONCLUSION
Cross-Defendant SVI, LAX, LLC’s Motion to Quash Amendment to Cross-Complaint is MOOT.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.