Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV40533, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40533    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant DK Connections LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff Nurit Greenger (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants DK Connections LLC (“DK”), Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. (“JLSA”) and Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation, LLC (“AAC”) for premises liability and negligence.

On March 28, 2023, DK filed an answer.

On April 18, 2023, DK filed a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint to be heard on April 18, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 26, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

DK requests leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Professional Security Consultants (“PSC”) for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, breach of contract and express indemnity.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 426.50 provides “A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the

cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants negligently controlled the subject location so as to proximately cause Plaintiff to be assaulted and battered by an unknown assailant. DK previously entered into an agreement with PSC, in which PSC agreed to provide security services to the subject property. DK alleges that PSC failed to perform pursuant to the agreement when they failed to notice an assault taking place on the property.

DK did not immediately file a cross-complaint as it was attempting to find the correct legal entity for each named defendant, and only recently received a copy of the subject agreement. Upon receiving this information, DK timely requested leave to file a cross-complaint against PSC. The Court finds there is good cause to allow leave to file the Cross-Complaint. DK acted quickly and the cross-complaint is based upon the same underlying facts as the original complaint. DK only answered the complaint a month prior to filing this motion, and no other parties have appeared. Given that trial is still over a year away, PSC will have enough time to respond to and conduct discovery into these claims. There is no indication of undue prejudice to any party. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant DK Connections LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. DK is ordered to file and serve the Cross-Complaint within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

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.