Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV39957, Date: 2025-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39957    Hearing Date: January 2, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 2, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Subpoena and Compel Deposition

Moving Party: Defendant C&C North America, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Rodolfo Garcia-Rosas and Alma Delia Llamas

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiffs Rodolfo Garcia-Rosas and Alma Delia Llamas filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Architectural Surfaces, Inc., et al., asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) strict liability – warning defect; (3) strict liability – design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) breach of implied warranties; and (6) loss of consortium. Plaintiff alleges he developed silicosis and consequential injuries through his employment working with stone products manufactured, distributed, and/or supplied by Defendants.

ANALYSIS

“A party who fails to plead a cause of action. . . 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.”  (CCP § 426.50.) 

Defendant C&C North America moves for leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity against Plaintiff’s employers for failing to implement safety procedures to work with Defendant’s stone products. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts Defendant should not be permitted to amend this late in litigation. Delay alone is insufficient grounds to deny leave to file a cross-complaint.

Defendant's motion is GRANTED.