Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV00358, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00358    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, individually and as subrogee for its insured, David Abri DDS Inc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARCHSTONE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

ARCHSTONE DISTRIBUTION, LLC,

Cross-Complainant,

vs.

AMAZON.COM, INC, et al., Cross-Defendants.

AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS IN INTERVENTION

Case No.: 22BBCV00358
Hearing Date: August 14, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: ECOSOFT SPC LTD’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSSCLAIMS AGAINST ARCHSTONE DISTRIBUTION, LLC

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant in Intervention ECOSOFT SPC LTD

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sentinel Insurance Company (Sentinel), individually and as subrogee for its insured David Abri DDS, Inc., filed the complaint against defendants Archstone Distribution,

LLC (Archstone) and Amazon.com, Inc. on May 20, 2022. This case arises out of a water leak incident. Archstone installed a Water Filter System it purchased from Amazon which leaked because the first-stage sediment filter separated from its base, resulting in a significant amount of water discharging into the building which eventually leaked into Dr. Abri’s unit below Archstone’s unit. Dr. Abri filed an insurance claim with plaintiff and plaintiff indemnified Dr. Abri in whole or in part for the loss for which each of the defendants are liable. Plaintiff has contractual subrogation rights.

Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: (1) negligence against all defendants, (2) strict products liability against Amazon, and (3) trespass against Archstone. On July 12, 2022, Archstone filed a cross-complaint against cross-defendants Amazon.com, Inc., EcoSoft SPC Ltd. (EcoSoft), EcoSoft Water, Clean Sip, LLC, and Clean Sip. Archstone alleges equitable indemnity, total indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief. Lexham Burbank, LLC, the owner of the building where the incident occurred, filed a complaint in intervention against EcoSoft, EcoSoft Water, and Amazon.com, Inc. on May 31, 2023, for losses incurred in the amount of $340,434.72 for damage caused to the property. EcoSoft filed a cross-complaint on April 19, 2024, against Sentinel, Clean Sip, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc, and Lexham Burbank, LLC for implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

EcoSoft filed the instant motion on May 9, 2024. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in its discretion, in the furtherance of justice “. . . allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to a pleading or proceeding . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) The court’s 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. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when ruling on a motion to amend because it is preferable to

permit the amendment and allow the parties to test the legal sufficiency of the amendment by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.¿(Id. at 1048.)

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previously pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

DISCUSSION

EcoSoft seeks leave to file cross claims against Archstone by amending its cross-complaint to include Archstone. EcoSoft SPC seeks to add cross claims for indemnification, contribution, and declaratory relief as to indemnification and contribution against Archstone. The proposed amended cross-complaint also removes Sentinel as a cross-defendant.

EcoSoft argues that they are not acting in bad faith nor with undue delay. It argues that it is necessary for efficient adjudication. EcoSoft also argues that these claims relate to the same issues and theories already at issue. Furthermore, EcoSoft met and conferred with the other parties in the matter, and they do not oppose this motion. (Decl. of Lauren S. Wulfe, ¶ 5.)

The court finds that EcoSoft has met the requirements of seeking leave to amend a pleading, in this case EcoSoft’s cross-complaint. Accordingly, the court grants EcoSoft’s motion to file its amended cross-complaint.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS EcoSoft SPC Ltd.’s motion for leave to file cross-claims against Archstone Distribution, LLC.