Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19SMCV01899, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 19SMCV01899    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: I

This is an unopposed motion to file a cross-complaint.   

Greenberg was a tenant in a building in which Hayek was the landlord.  In a prior UD action, Hayek was able to evict Greenberg on the basis that Greenberg had violated the lease by, among other things, making unauthorized changes to the unit.  Although there was some recovery in that suit, because it was an unlawful detainer action Hayek’s damages were limited and Greenberg was not able to litigate the claims he makes here.

In the instant case, Greenberg sues for defamation and harassment.  Hayek seeks to file a cross complaint to recover the damages allegedly caused by Greenberg’s activities while he was a tenant.

Frankly, the court does not really see the connection.  Hayek asserts that it will be more efficient to try the cases together than to have another standalone action.  The court is not so sure.  The court does not see how the issues to be raised in the complaint relate to those that will be asserted in the cross complaint other than the undisputed fact that Greenberg was a tenant.  Nor does the court understand the delay.  The original complaint complaint was filed in October 2019.  Defendant answered in September 2020.  The court does not understand why defendant waited over three years to seek to add these causes of action.  The likely answer is that defendant was happy with the way the UD case went (it was also in this department) and would like the instant claims to be tried here as well.  But that is not a ground.

Further, the court is concerned about the trial date.  The trial in the instant case is set for August 2024, which is only a few months away.  The court is not confident that the new cross complaint will not add significant discovery to the case.  While some of that might already have been done in the UD case, the discovery there was limited due to the nature of the case.  The court will not continue the trial.

The court is aware that plaintiff has not opposed the motion.  And the court assumes that if plaintiff supports the motion (or at least confirms its non-opposition) and both parties agree that it will not affect the trial date, the court might be inclined to grant.  But otherwise, the court would be inclined to DENY the motion.