Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV36093, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36093    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

EDGAR CASTELLANOS RODAS,

                Plaintiff,

        vs.

 

DAVID KOKAKIS, et al.,

 

                Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

    CASE NO.: 21STCV36093

 

[TENATIVE RULING] MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINTS ARE GRANTED

 

Dept. 27 

1:30 p.m. 

January 28, 2024

 

 

 

 

)

 

 

A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint.¿(CCP §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.)¿Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date.¿(CCP §428.50(b).) 

        If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint.¿(CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).) The proposed cross-complaint is mandatory when it arises out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim. The court must grant leave to file the mandatory cross-complaint absent bad faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50, Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice. (CCP §428.50(c).) Judicial policy generally supports the resolution of all disputed matters between parties, leave to amend or leave to cross-complain is typically granted liberally. (See Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) The Court may, however, deny such leave if there is demonstrated prejudice to the opposing party, such as trial delays, loss of critical evidence, or increased preparation costs. (Id.)¿ “Cross complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action.” (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes/All American Develop. Co. (1991) 230 CA3d 30, 38.) 

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 requires a copy of the proposed cross complaint to be attached to the motion. 

On September 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present action against Defendants Elicia Castaldi Kokakis and David Kokakis. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured on November 11, 2020, while performing demolition work at 11467 Thurston Circle, Los Angeles ("Premises") for the home owned by Defendants.

On September 26, 2024, Defendants took Plaintiff's deposition, during which Plaintiff stated that he was performing work as part of a demolition crew hired by Saul Monchez, the putative Defendant. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Monchez was present at the time of his injury. Plaintiff further testified that he had never performed demolition work prior to the day of the accident and that Mr. Monchez provided him no training.

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to add Saul Monchez Hauling d.b.a. Saul Hauling and Demolition as Doe Defendant Number 2. Defendants now move the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity and contribution against Defendant Saul Monchez Hauling.

The proposed cross-complaint is mandatory as it arises out of the same transaction as Plaintiff’s claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50; Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) The Court finds no indication of any bad faith and a copy of the cross complaint is attached to the motion. Accordingly, the motion is granted. Defendants are ordered to file their cross-complaint within 20 days of today.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that 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 matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar. 

 

__________________________ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court