Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV00970, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00970    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Kanji v. Gryga, Case No. 21SMCV00970

Hearing Date April 28, 2023

Defendant Gryga’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Plaintiff Kanji alleges defendant Gryga forged plaintiff’s signature on fraudulent deeds of trust and promissory notes, seeking to recover $230,000 from Kanji under a loan that was never made. Trial is June 21, 2023.

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Defendant Gryga moves for leave to file a cross-complaint for declaratory relief, asking the court to determine the amount due on the initial loan of $140,000. Leave to file a cross-complaint may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of an action. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §428.50.

Defendant argues the underlying complaint does not dispute the amount owed, only the loan’s validity. He argues the interests of justice and efficiency would be served by allowing him to file the cross-complaint so the court can determine the amount owed on both deeds of trust if they are deemed valid. He argues this determination will not require any evidence that will not already be produced at trial.

In opposition, plaintiff argues defendant has not been diligent and should have known at the outset that the court might have to determine how much plaintiff owes. Plaintiff further argues that granting the motion will cause prejudice, since trial is scheduled June 21, 2023.

Granting this motion serves judicial economy. The court will likely already have to determine the amount, if any, owed as part of its ruling on the underlying complaint. Allowing the cross-complaint formalizes the court’s intent to decide that issue. Granting the motion will not require any change in the scope of trial or evidence presented. There is no prejudice, as trial is 60 days away and all evidence would be presented and the issues necessarily decided even without the amendment. GRANTED.

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Expert discovery closed when the court vacated the October 24, 2022 trial date for mandatory settlement conferences. Defendant Gryga moves to reopen to depose plaintiff’s handwriting expert.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2024.050, a court may reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. When weighing a motion under this section, a court must consider the necessity of the discovery, the diligence or lack thereof of the party seeking the discovery, the likelihood that permitting the discovery will result in prejudice, and the length of time that has elapsed between the prior trial date and the current trial date.

Gryga did not previously take this deposition because the parties were involved in settlement negotiations. This is a valid excuse. Additionally, defendant is likely to suffer prejudice if the expert testifies without having been deposed. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by having the expert deposed. Trial is 60 days away. The interest of justice and a fair hearing on the merits dictates that discovery reopen solely for this deposition. GRANTED.