Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV39670, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39670    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Hearing Date:                         2/23/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name:                             JONATHAN PRATT vs. ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS LLC; ACCOR MANAGEMENT US INC.; CLUB MED; DRAKEN TRAINING DIVISION, INC.; DRAKEN PRIVATE SECURITY; and DOES 1 to 30, Inclusive

Case No.:                                21STCV39670

Motion:                                   Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint against Defendant Draken Private Security

Moving Party:                         Defendant MAMA MANAGEMENT USA, LLC

Responding Party:                   Unopposed

Ruling: GRANT                    

BACKGROUND

The Complaint was filed on October 27, 2021, where Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries as a result of being assaulted upon leaving Mama Shelter by one or more security guards. Mama Shelter contracted with Draken Private Security to provide security services for their premises, and Draken provided Mama Shelter with a certificate of insurance, naming Mama Shelter as an additional insured. After meeting and conferring, Plaintiff dismissed the Accor entities and added Mama Shelter as a defendant. Mama Shelter tendered its defense to Draken and Draken’s insurer, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, for Plaintiff’s claims against Mama Shelter. Initially, Mt. Hawley agreed to defend Mama Shelter in a letter dated March 28, 2023. However, on September 6, 2023, Mt. Hawley withdrew its agreement, leading Mama Shelter to file the present motion to leave to file a cross-complaint for contribution, implied and express indemnity, and declaratory relief against Draken under CCP § 428.10.

ANALYSIS

Neither Defendant Draken, nor Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for leave.

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, a party against whom a cause of action is asserted may file a cross-complaint to assert “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.”  (CCP §428.10 (b).) 

A party must obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if the party does not file the cross-complaint at the same time as the answer.  The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint in the interests of justice at any time during the course of the action.  (CCP §428.50 (c).)   

Here, Defendant Mama Shelter contends that Defendant Draken and Draken’s insurer, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, agreed to provide security services and named Mama Shelter as an additional insured on its insurance policy, thereby assuming certain responsibilities to defend and potentially indemnify Mama Shelter against claims arising from the security services provided. (Ryan Decl. ¶ 4-5)

 “Undoubtedly, a claim for contribution or indemnity ‘arises out of’ the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim.”  (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 799.)  Thus, it is in the interests of justice to permit Defendants to file the proposed cross-complaint, as resolution of all issues pertaining to responsibility for Plaintiffs’ damages in one action is efficient.  The Court therefore grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED.