Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV25023, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV25023    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Warren Koshofer (Plaintiff) sued Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports based on injuries Plaintiff sustained in a trip and fall incident over a raised curb.   Defendant City of Los Angeles (Moving Defendant) seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against ABM Aviation, Inc. (ABM).  The motion is unopposed. 

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Under Evidence Code section 451, “[j]udicial notice shall be taken of the following: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of the this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution…(f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. ” (Evid. Code, § 451, subds. (a), (f).) Under Evidence Code section 452, “[j]udicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state. (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States (d) Record of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States…(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdictions of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capably of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (a)-(d), (g), (h).)

Here, the Court grants Moving Defendant’s requests for judicial notice of Moving-Defendant’s proposed Cross-Complaint against ABM, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed October 17, 2019, per Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d)(1).  Further the Court grants Moving Defendant’s requests for judicial notice of the existence of documents Board File No. DA-5043, the February 10, 2016, Agreement between LAWA and ABM, as well as Board File No. DA-5043A, the February 14, 2019, amendment to the Agreement between LAWA and ABM.  However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the validity or effect of these documents as their interpretation can be subject to reasonable dispute.

DISCUSSION

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, a party against whom a cause of action is asserted may file a cross-complaint to assert “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (b).)  A party must obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if the party does not file the cross-complaint at the same time as the answer.  The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint in the interests of justice at any time during the course of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (c).) 

Moving Defendant seeks leave to assert claims for Contractual Indemnity/Breach of Contract, Equitable Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Judgment against ABM.  “Undoubtedly, a claim for contribution or indemnity ‘arises out of’ the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim.”  (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 799.)  The Court concludes it is in the interests of justice to resolve all issues regarding causation of the underlying incident in this action.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Moving Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, subdivision (b), and orders  Moving Defendant to file and served the proposed cross-complaint on or before March 17, 2023. 

Moving Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.