Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00811, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00811, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00811 Hearing Date: March 19, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: March 19, 2024¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00811

CASE NAME: Gabriela Licea v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, O’Connell Landscape Maintenance, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Gabriela Licea (“No Opposition”)

TRIAL DATE: Not set.

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff, Gabriela Licea (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for: (1) Negligence.

On February 6, 2024, this case was transferred to this Court from Judge Stern’s courtroom in Torrance.

On January 10, 2024, Defendants, O’Connell Landscape Maintenance, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), had filed a Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint that was pending before the matter was reassigned to Inglewood.

B. Procedural

On January 10, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint (“XC”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure Section 428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted may file a cross-complaint setting forth: “(b) Any 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 shall obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if it is not concurrently filed with the answer or at any time before the court sets a trial date. Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10, subd. (c).)

B. Discussion

As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on the allegation that she allegedly tripped and fell when she was walking on a grassy area in the parking lot of Manhattan Village Shopping Center. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-2.) According to the Complaint, as Plaintiff attempted to cross a patch of grass adjacent to the parking area and sidewalk, she allegedly fell into a depression in the grass and claims she suffered personal injuries. Plaintiff has sought damages from Defendants, Jones Lange Lasalle Americas, Inc. (“JLL”) who is the property manager for the Manhattan Village Shopping Center and O’Connell Landscape Maintenance, Inc. (“O’Connell”) who is contracted to provide landscape maintenance from the shopping enter.

However, Defendants note that during the discovery process, the Defendants and Plaintiff independently discovered that a sign on the grassy area was moved, which Plaintiff alleges caused the depression that led to her injuries. Defendants note that they further discovered after this claim that the sign was moved by proposed Cross-Defendant, Interstate Cleaning Corporation, Inc. (“ICC”). It is for this reason that Defendants argue that they need leave to file this cross-complaint against ICC for the allegations above. As such, Defendants assert that they are seeking leave to file a cross-compliant to allege causes of action for: (1) Equitable Indemnity; (2) Contribution; (3) Apportionment; (4) Declaratory Relief; (5) Express Indemnity; and (6) Breach of Contract as against proposed cross-defendant, ICC.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 428, this Court finds good cause to GRANT this motion, and that such a granting would be in the interest of justice. Further, the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action filed against Defendants. As such, this Court finds that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the Cross-Complaint to go forward in a single suit, enabling all parties to have notice of proceedings and discovery in both the main action and the cross-action, and potentially enable the trier of fact to apportion responsibility among all alleged actors in the same action.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.