Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV29315, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV29315    Hearing Date: January 11, 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

Plaintiffs Kenneth Simons and Karen Simons (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Defendants Andrew John Vasquez, Del Rey Meat and Seafood, Inc., Harvest King Trading USA Limited, and Harvest King Trading USA based on injuries Plaintiffs allege resulted from a motor vehicle collision.   Defendants Andrew John Vasquez and Del Rey Meat and Seafood, Inc. (Moving Defendants) seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Harvest King Trading USA Limited aka Harvest King Trading USA (Harvest King).  The motion is unopposed.

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 Defendants seek leave to assert claims for total indemnity, implied partial indemnity, declaratory relief, and express indemnity against Harvest King.  “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 Defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross-complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, subdivision (b), and orders Moving Defendants to file and serve the proposed cross-complaint on or before January 31, 2023.

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