Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00050860-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00050860-CU-PA-CTL HO VS DALRYMPLE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Eric Dalrymple's motion for leave to file cross-complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Jenny Ho, Long Tran, and Hoang-Kim Ho did not file an opposition to Defendant's motion.

Pursuant to this court's local rules, such failure to respond will be deemed a concession the motion has merit. (San Diego Local Rule 2.1.19.B.) The court notes that Attorney Binh Bui filed a motion to be relieved as counsel with a purported hearing date of March 22, 2024, but did not reserve a hearing date for this motion; the only hearing on calendar was set by attorney Rachel Van on behalf of Defendant. As such, Attorney Bui's motion will not be heard. (San Diego Local Rule 2.1.19 ['Failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in the demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause hearing not being heard.'].) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50: A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action.

The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.

Here, attorney Van attests that after Defendant filed his answer to the complaint in June 2023, she had a more detailed discussion with him about the facts of this case. From that discussion, they realized Defendant has grounds to cross complain against Plaintiffs for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. Defendant ultimately filed the instant motion less than three months after he filed his answer.

Under the circumstances, the court concludes Defendant acted in good faith, and therefore will be granted leave to file the proposed cross-complaint.

Accordingly, Defendant is granted leave to file the proposed cross-complaint (ROA #46, Exhibit A) no later than March 29, 2024.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019919  16