Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV19334, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19334    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 30

HAYDEN FISHER vs EQUINOX FITNESS SOUTH BAY, INC., et al.

Re: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint against PAC-94, Limited Partnership

TENTATIVE

The Court GRANTS Equinox’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Equinox is ordered to separately file the proposed cross-complaint with the Court, which is attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of its counsel in support of the motion, so that it becomes an operative pleading in this action, within 20 days of issuance of this order.  Moving party is ordered to give notice.

According to the declaration of counsel for Equinox, Patricia Lee-Gulley (“Lee-Gulley”): (1) there has been an ongoing dispute with PLP over which party controlled the parking lot (Lee-Gulley Decl., ¶ 3); (2) while PLP claimed in the Fall of 2022 that Equinox was responsible for the parking lot at issue in this matter, upon receipt of the lease agreement from PLP in February 2023 it was revealed that PLP is responsible for the parking lot (Id., ¶¶ 7, 10); (3) to date, Plaintiff has not sought recovery from PLP (Id., ¶ 11); and (4) Equinox was not aware of the basis of the claims and causes of action set forth in its cross-complaint until after the filing of its answer to the complaint and cross-complaint, and after the trial date was set (Id., ¶ 13).

Equinox also indicates that the claims in the proposed cross-complaint arise from the same operative facts and occurrences as the principal action, in which PLP is named as a defendant. (Lee-Gulley Decl., ¶ 14.) Equinox sets forth facts that: (1) it was misled by representations of PLP about the contents of the lease and sought a full copy to verify the information provided by PLP (Id., ¶ 15); (2) despite numerous requests, Equinox was not provided with a copy of the lease until February 2023 and, even at that time, the lease was not complete (Id., ¶ 16); (3) control of the premises’ parking lot is central to the claims between the co-defendants in this matter (Id., ¶ 17); and (4) there will be no prejudice to any party from granting the motion nor will it add any burden to the parties or require duplicate discovery as Plaintiff has not propounded any discovery to PLP (Id., ¶¶ 19-20).

The Court finds that Equinox has made a showing of good faith warranting leave to file a cross-complaint against PLP. While the opposition states that Equinox has not shown good faith, the opposition presents no evidence showing a lack of good faith. The proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transactions or occurrences that give rise to the complaint. Equinox only recently discovered the basis for its proposed cross-complaint due to the purported actions of PLP. Moreover, the proposed cross-complaint seeks equitable indemnity against PLP which, under Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes/All American Development Co., supra, 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38, is related to the complaint.

The Court therefore GRANTS Equinox’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint pursuant to Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.