Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV08573, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08573    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Cross-Defendant LA Properties, Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw Appearance and Answer to Complaint

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

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff Jeana Norayan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) for dangerous condition of public property.

On August 25, 2020, Defendant filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-15 for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. Defendant later amended the Cross-Complaint to include Cross-Defendants LA Properties, Inc. (“LA”), A and Z Paving Contractors, Inc. (“A-Z”) and Z and A Paving Contractors, Inc. (“Z-A”). On March 25, 2022, LA filed an answer.

On March 15, 2022, LA filed an answer to the complaint and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants A-Z, Z-A and Vartouhi Norayan (“Vartouhi”) for indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief.

On July 25, 2022, LA filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance and Answer to Complaint to be heard on September 21, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for September 30, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

LA requests the Court withdraw LA’s appearance and answer to the complaint of Plaintiff as the answer was filed due to the result of mistake.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(a) states “(1) The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.

(2) When it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the amendment renders it necessary, the court may postpone the trial, and may, when the postponement will by the amendment be rendered necessary, require, as a condition to the amendment, the payment to the adverse party of any costs as may be just.”

CCP §576 provides: “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

DISCUSSION

LA has not been identified as a Defendant to Plaintiff’s complaint, but rather a Cross-Defendant to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint. LA’s attorney mistakenly believed that LA had been named in both the complaint and Cross-Complaint. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal as LA has never been named as a Defendant. The Court finds good cause and grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Defendant LA Properties, Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw Appearance and Answer to Complaint is GRANTED. The answer to the complaint is deemed withdrawn and stricken. LA’s appearance as to the complaint is also withdrawn.

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.