Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20GDCV00924, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00924    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants Anil D. Mall and Silverlakes Management, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Corona Medical, Inc.

Defendants Anil Donald Mall and Silverlakes Management, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Corona Medical, Inc. filed this action on October 29, 2020 against Defendants Med Star Hospice Care, Inc. (“Med Star”) and Maria Cecilia Tran (“Tran”). Defendants Anil Donald Mall (“Mall”) and Silverlakes Management, LLC (“Silverlakes”) were substituted for Doe defendants on June 4, 2021. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Tran on March 9, 2022.

Plaintiff alleges that it contracted with Med Star to provide pharmacy services, and that over time, Med Star defaulted on its bills. Plaintiff alleges that Mall and Silverlakes are alter egos of Med Star, and that Mall/Silverlakes used Med Star as a mere shell and instrumentality in order to avoid creditors.

Mall and Silverlakes now move for leave to file a cross-complaint against Tran and Med Star for express indemnity, implied contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

DISCUSSION

“A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following:

(a)   Any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him. ….

(b)  Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.)

            Leave of court to file a permissive cross-complaint may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)

First, the court finds that the causes of action of the proposed cross-complaint arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the underlying complaint. Mall and Silverlakes contend that at Tran’s deposition in April 2022, Tran testified that she was the owner of Med Star and that she had transferred funds from Med Star to other entities. (Nuelle Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) Mall and Silverlakes now seek to be indemnified by Tran and Med Star for failing to pay Plaintiff under the relevant contract.

Second, the court finds that the filing of the proposed cross-complaint will be in the interest of justice. Although Plaintiff argues that Mall and Silverlakes unreasonably delayed in bringing a cross-complaint and that Plaintiff will be prejudiced, the court notes that a Second Amended Complaint, adding new allegations, has recently been filed, and based on that filing, trial has been continued to May 8, 2023. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion to grant the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Mall and Silverlakes’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

The court orders Mall and Silverlakes to file and serve the cross-complaint within 3 days of the date of this order.

Mall and Silverlakes are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 22, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court