Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV32585, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV32585    Hearing Date: January 18, 2023    Dept: 26

On July 23, 2021, defendants Krikor Barsoumian and Skarlet Barsegyan filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

On July 28, 2021, the Court granted defendants Krikor Barsoumian and Skarlet Barsegyan’s motion to stay discovery due to the possibility of pending criminal proceedings against Defendants Skarlet Barsegyan and Krikor Barsoumian. 

Defendants Krikor Barsoumian and Skarlet Barsegyan’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is taken off calendar.  On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed these defendants, Krikor Barsoumian and Skarlet Barsegyan, from the complaint with prejudice.

“Leave [to file a cross-complaint] may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c) [italics added].)  Thus, a pending action is required.  (City of Hanford v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 580, 587 [“We conclude ‘during the course of the action’ should not be construed to permit the filing of a cross-complaint after final judgment has been entered on the underlying complaint.”].)  A dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final judgment.  (See Estate of Redfield (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1533.)

Moreover, the claims that defendants Krikor Barsoumian and Skarlet Barsegyan seek to bring in their proposed cross-complaint are for indemnity and for torts against other co-defendants.  Thus, the basis for the proposed cross-complaint no longer exists. 

Accordingly, Defendants Krikor Barsoumian and Skarlet Barsegyan’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is taken off calendar.  In addition, because Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed Defendants Krikor Barsoumian and Skarlet Barsegyan from the action with prejudice, the stay is lifted. 

Plaintiff has filed proof of service of the Summons and Complaint as to certain defendants who have not responded though the time for them to file a responsive pleading has lapsed, including Wicked Automotive Inc.

2/8/23 at 8:30 am - OSC re sanctions for entry of default.  Plaintiff’s Counsel is ordered to appear on 2/8/23 at 8:30 am and show cause why sanctions (including monetary sanctions of at least $500 and/or dismissal) should not be imposed for failure to cause entry of default as to all served defendants who have not responded.

If defaults have not all been entered at that time, then no later than five days before the OSC hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel is also to file a declaration explaining the failure to obtain entry of defaults as to all served defendants who have not responded and explaining any and all efforts undertaken to seek their defaults. 

The Case Management Conference is continued to 2/8/23 at 8:30 am.

Plaintiff is to give notice to all parties.