Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV06864, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06864    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 15, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc.  

Responding Party: None

T/R:    ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION CONTRACTOR, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.

            ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION CONTRACTOR, INC. to notice. 

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

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 8:30 am on the day of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sunset Junior, LLC filed this action against defendant Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. for damages arising from roof work defendant did on its property.

Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on June 10, 2024.   

Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. now seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff; Ryda Ventures, LLC; and Pietro Rovelli and ROES 1 through 50 for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, express indemnity, breach of contract, negligence, fraud and fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

As of January 10, 2025, no opposition has been filed.  

ANALYSIS

A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 412.20, subd. (a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.)  Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., §428.50, subd. (b).) 

If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).)  Leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith. (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., §428.50(c).)

Ryda Ventures, LLC and Pietro Rovelli are parties Defendant says it contracted with to provide asbestos remediation to property of Plaintiff’s that is the subject of this lawsuit. According to Defendant, Rovelli is Ryda Ventures, LLC’s principal. Defendant asserts that it later discovered a unity of ownership between Plaintiff and Ryda Ventures, LLC. Defendant states that it tendered the defense of this matter to Ryda Ventures, LLC and Pietro Rovelli, but neither accepted the tender.

The proposed cross-complaint and complaint arise from the same incident and should be litigated together. There is no evidence Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. has been dilatory in seeking to file the cross-complaint, nor is there any apparent prejudice to any party from the filing of the cross-complaint. No party opposes the motion.

The Court grants the motion.   

Hearing Date: January 15, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer

Moving Party: Defendant Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc.  

Responding Party: None

T/R:    ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION CONTRACTOR, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER IS GRANTED.

            ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION CONTRACTOR, INC. to notice. 

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

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 8:30 am on the day of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sunset Junior, LLC filed this action against defendant Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. for damages arising from roof work defendant did on its property.

Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on June 10, 2024. Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. now seeks leave to amend the answer.  

As of January 10, 2025, no opposition has been filed.  

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subd. (a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)   

Ryda Ventures, LLC and Pietro Rovelli are parties defendant says it contracted with to provide asbestos remediation to the property of Plaintiff’s that is the subject of this lawsuit. According to Defendant, Rovelli is Ryda Ventures, LLC’s principal. Defendant asserts that it later discovered a unity of ownership between Plaintiff and Ryda Ventures, LLC. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff made a claim with its insurer and filed a lawsuit over the damages arising from the same incident. Defendant states that it tendered the defense of this matter to Ryda Ventures, LLC and Pietro Rovelli, but neither accepted the tender. Defendant states that it needs to add affirmative defenses considering these findings and developments.

There is no evidence Environmental Remediation Contractors, Inc. has been dilatory in seeking to file the answer, nor is there any apparent prejudice to any party from amending the answer. No parties oppose the motion.  

The Court grants the motion.