Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV01988, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01988    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 12/9/24

Case #24CHCV01988

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

Motion filed on 12/2/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Alen Gevorgyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Christino Erasto Lara

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendant Alen Gevorgyan leave to file a cross-complaint. 

RULING:

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision.  On 5/29/24, Plaintiff Christino Erasto Lara (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Alen Gevorgyan (Gevorgyan) and Susanna Sukiasyan (Sukiasyan).  On 7/29/24, Gevorgyan filed an answer to the complaint through defense counsel assigned by his insurance carrier.  Gevorgyan intended to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff at the same time he filed his answer; however, due to medical issues and leave associated therewith, Gevorgyan’s private counsel who represents him on his cross-claims, did not coordinate with his defense counsel to have the cross-complaint filed at the same time as the answer.  (See Karapetian Decl.).  Efforts to obtain a stipulation from Plaintiff to allow Gevorgyan to file his cross-complaint went unanswered.  Id.

On 10/18/24, Gevorgyan served, by email, the instant motion seeking an order granting him leave to file his cross-complaint.  The email addresses where the motion papers were served on Gevorgyan’s defense counsel, and more importantly, Plaintiff’s counsel, are not their email addresses of record. 

The email address which appears in eCourt for Gevorgyan’s defense counsel is rbergsten@hosplaw.com and the motion was served on dabbasi@hosplaw.com.  However, the email address dabbasi@hosplaw.com appears on Gevorgyan’s answer along with the email address of record and is one of the email addresses indicated in the Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address filed by defense counsel on 7/29/24. 

The email address of record for Plaintiff’s counsel which also appears on Plaintiff’s complaint is service@mrparkerlaw.com.  The motion was served on Plaintiff’s counsel at michael@mrparkerlaw.com.  There is no opposition or other response to the motion to cure the defect in notice.     

Additionally, the motion and supporting papers were not filed until 12/2/24, 5 court days before the hearing date.  CCP 1005(b) requires motion papers to be filed at least 16 court days before the hearing date. 

If Plaintiff’s counsel appears at the hearing and has no objection, the motion will be granted.  If not, the motion will be placed off calendar due to the defects in notice.       

If the motion is granted, Gevorgyan must separately file the cross-complaint, which is attached to the Karapetian declaration as Exhibit E, by 12/10/24. 

The Court notes that attorney Karapetian has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to his declaration in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be submitted in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.