Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV31158, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV31158, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31158 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT

Hearing Date: 7/3/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV31158 TIMOTHY CONNOLLY vs SP PLUS CORPORATION

Moving Party: Defendants Calmart Sub I, LLC (erroneously sued as Brookfield Properties)

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT IS GRANTED

Legal Standard

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.

Discussion

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, alleging causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability against SP Plus Corporation, California Mart, LLC, California Market, Rytec, LLC, and Victor Enriquez. Plaintiff alleges that while entering the premises, one of the speed gates lowered and struck him.

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, identifying one of the DOE Defendants as Calmart Sub I, LLC (Calmart). Defendants Calmart’s parent company and Rytec allegedly entered into an agreement in 2018 for the installation of the garage gates involved in the incident. This agreement contained an indemnity provision. On December 28, 2023, Calmart requested indemnity from Rytec and on April 8, 2024, Rytec denied Calmart’s request. Calmart now moves the Court for leave to file a cross-complaint against Rytec for indemnity and declaratory relief.

Calmart has met all the requirements for leave, as a cross-complaint is mandatory when it arises out of the same transaction as Plaintiff’s claim. “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 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.) No opposition was filed alleging prejudice. A copy of the proposed cross-complaint is also attached to the motion. (Ex. A.) Thus, the present motion is granted.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.