Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV26421, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV26421 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: 28
Defendants Staff Pro, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LP LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Nicole Triplett (“Triplett”) and Latasha Nash (“Nash”) filed this action against Defendants Contemporary Services Corporation (“CSC”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), and Service Management Group, LLC (“SMG LLC”) for assault, battery, false imprisonment, batter by peace officer, and violation of federal civil rights 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs later amended the complaint to include Defendants SMG Entertainment (“SMGE”), Staff Pro, Inc. (“SPI”), Universal Protection Service, LP (“UPS”), SMG Management (“SMGM”), SMG Management I, LLC (“SMGM I”) and SMG Management II, LLC (“SMGM II”).
On September 21, 2020, the Court dismissed SMG LLC with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Request for Dismissal. On October 5, 2020, the City filed its answer. On January 7, 2021, the Court dismissed CSC without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Request for Dismissal.
On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint against all non-dismissed Defendants. On October 8, 2021, the City filed its answer to the FAC.
On November 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint against all non-dismissed Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs added Defendants Steve Lozano (“Lozano”), Michelle Cassida (“Cassida”), Joe Paradice (“Paradice”), Ryan Anderson (“Anderson”), Michael Miller (“Miller”), Emmanuel Turner (“Turner”), Sonia Lopez (“Lopez”), Beatriz Villareal (“Villareal”), Kendra McDonald (“McDonald”) and Dolores Martinez-Reifer (“Martinez-Reifer”).
On January 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint. On March 7, 2022, the City, Martinez-Reifer, Cassida, and Lozano all filed individual answers to the TAC. SMGM, SMGM I, and SMGM II also filed their collective answer on March 7, 2022. SPI and UPS filed their answers on April 21, 2022; UPS was later dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On August 30, 2022, SPI and UPS (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint to be heard on December 14, 2022.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 12, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Moving Defendants request leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants SMGM, SMGM I and SMGM II for equitable indemnity, express contractual indemnity, implied contractual indemnity, contribution/apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.
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
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that, while at a concert, they were assaulted by agents and employees of Defendants, including Moving Defendants. At the time of the incident, Moving Defendants allege that there was a service agreement between SPI and SMG, in which SPI provided security services to SMG for the subject event. Moving Defendants allege that Cassida, a SMG employee, was the aggressor in the altercation between Defendants and Plaintiffs. It only has recently become clear from discovery that Cassida was the specific individual, explaining the delay in filing the Cross-Complaint. The Court finds there is good cause to allow leave to file the Cross-Complaint, as it includes facts and parties already included in the base complaint.
CONCLUSION
Defendants Staff Pro, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LP LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Moving Defendants are 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.