Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: BC681863, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.
PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.
Case Number: BC681863 Hearing Date: October 22, 2024 Dept: 19
1. Motion For Leave to File Cross-Complaint by Defendant City of Los Angeles
After consideration of the briefing filed, Defendant City of Los Angeles’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.
The Court finds, as argued by Defendant City, that the proposed cross-complaint attached to the declaration of Zakia Kator, is a permissive cross-complaint and may be filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, subdivision (b), as the claims asserted arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against Defendant City.
The Court also finds that granting leave to file the proposed cross-complaint is in the interest of justice. Trial has not been rescheduled in the matter, and no party filed any opposition to the instant Motion.
Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant City of Los Angeles is ordered to formally file the proposed cross-complaint. However, the first page of the proposed cross-complaint does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.111, because it does not state the name of each party. (See Cal. R. Ct., 2.111(4).) Defendant is ordered to correct this error and file the Cross-Complaint within five (5) court days.
Counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles to give notice.
After consideration of the briefing
filed, Defendant Soil Engineering
Construction, Inc. (erroneously sued as Soils Engineering Construction, Inc.)’s
unopposed Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.
Leave of court is required to file a cross-complaint when
the party seeking to file the cross-complaint has filed an answer. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 428.50(a)-(c).) Cross-complaints may be either permissive or
compulsory. (Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852,
863–864; see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 428.10, 428.30 & 428.50.)
A
cross-complaint against a third party is permissive, not mandatory as
defendants may wait and pursue their rights against third parties in
subsequent, independent proceedings. (Insurance Co. of North America v.
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 297, 303; see Cal. Prac.
Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 6:544.)
“Permission to file a permissive cross- complaint is
solely within the trial court's discretion.” (Crocker Nat. Bank, supra,
221 Cal.App.3d at 864 (citing Orient Handel v. United States Fid. and Guar.
Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701).)
“The reason for allowing cross-complaints is to have a
complete determination of a controversy among the parties in one action, thus
avoiding circuity of action and duplication of time and effort.” (City of
Hanford v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 580, 587–588 (citing Currie
Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Bowen (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 774, 777; Sattinger
v. Newbauer (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 365, 369).)
Here, the Court finds, as argued by Defendant Soil Engineering Construction, that the
proposed cross-complaint attached to the declaration of Sejal S. Patel as
Exhibit A, may be filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10,
subdivision (b) because the claims asserted arise out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the
cause brought against Defendant Soil.
The Court also finds that granting leave to file the
proposed cross-complaint is in the interest of justice. Trial has not been
rescheduled in the matter, and no party filed any opposition to the Motion.
Defendant Soil Engineering
Construction, Inc. is ordered to formally file the proposed cross-complaint attached to
the declaration of Sejal S. Patel as Exhibit A within five (5) court days.
Counsel for Defendant Soil Engineering
Construction, Inc. to give notice.