Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 20BBCV00921, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20BBCV00921    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

ANDREW DERKRIKORIAN, an individual,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

CHAPEL OF THE HILLS ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF SUNLAND CALIFORNIA, PACIFIC CLINICS HEAD START, a California corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 20BBCV00921

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

 

Date:   February 23, 2024

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          This is a wrongful eviction action.  Plaintiff Andrew DerKrikorian (DerKrikorian) alleges that he entered into a lease with Defendant Chapel of the Hills Assembly of God Sunland California (Chapel) for a portion of the premises at 11120 Oro Vista Avenue, Sunland, CA 91040. Plaintiff alleges that Chapel substantially interfered with his enjoyment of the lease; and that he found a sub-lessor, Pacific Clinics Head Start (Pacific) to take over the remainder of the lease. Plaintiff apparently negotiated a provision that Pacific would pay some amount of rent over the amount Plaintiff was charged by Chapel  as compensation for his loss of use of the premises. In negotiating the sublease, Plaintiff obtained an initial deposit from Pacific. Upon hearing of the deal, Chapel allegedly tried to negotiate with Pacific and cut Plaintiff out of the sublease.

          DerKrikorian filed his complaint on December 16, 2020. DerKrikorian then filed a first amended complaint on September 27, 2022. The first amended complaint was the first time Pacific Clinic was named as a defendant. Defendant Pacific filed an answer to the first amended complaint on November 16, 2022. Pacific filed a cross-complaint on August 29, 2023, which was subsequently voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on September 27, 2023. Pacific now seeks leave to file this new cross-complaint.

          Pacific now seeks to assert cross-claims against DerKrikorian for return of the initial deposit that it paid to him for the sublease, as Pacific Clinics withdrew its offer, and the agreement was never consummated. 

          This motion for leave to file a cross-complaint was filed January 25, 2024. No opposition was filed. 

The Court concludes that the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory, and it is not being sought in bad faith.  Therefore, the motion is granted. 

 

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

In seeking leave to file a cross-complaint, Pacific cites statutes governing both compulsory and permissive cross-complaints. Because the pleading Pacific Clinics seeks to file alleges claims against DerKrikorian, it is compulsory. Compulsory cross-complaints are governed by Code Civ. Proc. §426.10, et seq. 

Code Civ. Proc. §426.10(c) defines “related cause of action” as a “cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” 

 Failure to raise “related causes of action” by way of cross-complaint at the time of answering waives them. (Code Civ. Proc. §426.30(a). )

A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to this requirement may apply for leave to file a cross-complaint, which the court shall grant, upon such terms as may be just, if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc. §426.50.)

The compulsory cross-complaint statute is designed to prevent piecemeal litigation and avoid a multiplicity of actions. The statute is to be liberally construed to advance this purpose. (Heshejin v. Rostami (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 984, 993.) “Because of the liberal construction given to the statute to accomplish its purpose of avoiding a multiplicity of actions, ‘transaction’ is construed broadly; it is ‘not confined to a single, isolated act or occurrence ... but may embrace a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated [citations].’ (Citation.)” (Id. at 993-994.)  

California’s “principle of liberality” concerning pleadings requires that even a severely belated cross-complaint be permitted, absent “a strong showing of bad faith.” (Foot's Transfer & Storage Co., Ltd v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 903-904.)

 

          III.     ANALYSIS

          a. The Proposed Pleading is a Compulsory Cross-Complaint

Plaintiff DerKrikorian sued Defendant Chapel of the Hills Assembly of God Sunland California (Chapel) for wrongful eviction from the premises located at 11120 Oro Vista Avenue, Sunland, CA 91040. As it pertains to Pacific, the evidence seems to be that Pacific entered into a sublease agreement on or about November 21, 2019 to sub-lease a portion of the premises with Plaintiff DerKrikorian. On that day, Pacific put down an initial deposit of $8,650.00 with Plaintiff. After this agreement was signed, there was a meeting with all three parties.  Pacific allegedly learned that its potential use of the premises was not what Plaintiff represented. Consequently, Pacific withdrew its offer to sublease the premises on or about January 29, 2020.  The agreement was never consummated.

Pacific seeks leave to assert claims to recover its initial lease deposit of $8,650.00 from Plaintiff DerKrikorian.  It alleges that it deposited this money with Plaintiff in expectation of taking over the lease, which it ultimately did not do. Pacific alleges there have been attempts to recover the money, to no avail.

          Specifically, the proposed cross-complaint provides:

¶4       On or about November 21, 2019, Pacific Clinics signed a Sublease Agreement to rent the premises from Plaintiff for the duration of Plaintiff’s lease. Plaintiff did not sign this agreement.         

¶6, 7   Once this agreement was signed, a meeting was held between Pacific and Chapel where Pacific learned it would not have exclusive use of the property as a daycare/preschool, it had to stow children’s toys over the weekend so Chapel could also use the space and that Chapel might use the furniture left out by Pacific in conducting its church business.

¶7       Pacific was concerned about degradation of its equipment intended for use by toddlers being used by older children and adult congregants of Chapel.

¶8       On January 29, 2020, Pacific withdrew its sublease offer, after learning conditions of the sublease were different than those represented by Plaintiff.

¶9       Pacific subsequently made several attempts to recover its initial deposit from Plaintiff, but to no avail.

 

          b. Good Faith

There is no showing of bad faith here.

 

 

 

 

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          The motion by Defendant Pacific for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted. The Cross-complaint is to be separately filed and served forthwith.   

          The Court also schedules a Trial Setting Conference in this case for ____________,

2024 at 8:30 a.m.  The parties are ordered to file and serve updates Case Management Statements no later than five (5) court days before the conference.

          Moving party is ordered to give notice.

 

 

 

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT