Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 19STCV39330, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
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.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 19STCV39330 Hearing Date: August 21, 2023 Dept: 30
CLAUDIA MARLENE MOKAY vs NAHUN EUCEBIO MURILLO, et al.
Re: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
Tentative: Moving parties’ motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Cross-Complaint may be filed within 20 days of the date of this order. Moving parties to give notice.
Discussion:
Preliminarily, on May 10, 2023, Nahun Eucebio Murillo (Murillo) was dismissed from the instant case. Accordingly, the Court finds Murillo lacks standing to raise arguments in opposition to Moving Parties’ instant motion, and the issues raised in Murillo’s opposition are not ripe vis-à-vis Murillo. Therefore, the Court finds the issue of whether Moving Parties will be granted leave to file a cross-complaint in the instant matter nonjusticiable as to Murillo who is no longer a party to the action. Thus, the Court shall disregard Murillo’s opposition on this basis.
The remaining moving parties seek leave to assert a claim for express indemnity against Murillo. “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.)
Further, assuming the Court were to consider Murillo’s arguments in opposition to the instant motion, the Court notes the following: (1) Moving Parties’ prior counsel’s knowledge of the independent contractor agreement giving rise to the proposed express indemnity claim, and failing to file a cross-complaint earlier, does not rise to the level of bad faith necessary to deny leave of a compulsory cross-complaint; and (2) any further arguments regarding the barring of express indemnity claim via laches, or any other theory, would require the Court to consider the proposed cause of action on its merits which is inappropriate at this stage.
The Court concludes it is in the interests of justice to resolve all issues regarding liability for the underlying incident in this action. As such, the Court grants leave to file the cross-complaint.