Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV15874, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

DEFENDANTS’ LYNWOOD DEL CAPRI, L.P. AND POSITIVE INVESTMENTS, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ICEHOUSE VENTURES V, LLC, AND MASHCOLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Lynwood Del Capri, L.P., and Positive Investments, Inc.

This is a landlord-tenant habitability case regarding the Units 6 and 7 at 111 W. Del Amo Blvd., Long Beach, California. On August 7, 2024, defendants Lynwood Del Capri, L.P., and Positive Investments, Inc. (hereafter, Moving Party) filed this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against defendants Icehouse Ventures V, LLC, and Mashcole Property Management, Inc. (hereafter Proposed Cross-Defendants). Moving Party seeks to assert causes of action for express indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, breach of contract, and declaratory relief against Proposed Cross-Defendants.

A defendant must file a permissive cross-complaint against the plaintiff at the time the defendant files an answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50(a).) All other permissive cross-complaints may be filed at any time before the first trial date is set. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(b).) When a cross-complaint is not filed within these time frames, leave of court is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(b).)

The court may grant leave to file a permissive cross-complaint in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c).) Thus, the court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint at any time until judgment is entered. (City of Hanford v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 580, 587; see also Orient Handel v. United States Fid. and Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701.) Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court’s discretion. (Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)

Here, Moving Party is entitled to leave to file the proposed cross-complaint. It is undisputed that their claims arise out of the same transaction and involve the same property or controversy. Accordingly, it would serve the interests of justice and promote judicial economy to allow Moving Party to file the proposed cross-complaint.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. The cross-complaint is deemed filed as of this date. Defendants Lynwood Del Capri, L.P., and Positive Investments, Inc. are directed to separately file the cross-complaint within 5 court days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court