Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV27594, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27594    Hearing Date: February 5, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiffs Kathy L. Graham and Jordan T. Graham (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Brochelle Hale-Corhn, Doretha Hale, and JYK Property Services Inc. (“JYK”).

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract/covenant of quiet enjoyment/warranty of habitability, (2) tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (3) negligence, (4) nuisance, (5) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (6) violation of Civil Code section 1950.5, (7) violation of unfair business practices, (8) constructive eviction, and

(9) tenant harassment. 

            In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that “Defendants have been, during all relevant times, the owners and/or managers of the premises located at 3311 3/4 77th St, Los Angeles, CA 90043 (hereinafter ‘Subject Property’).” (Compl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs allege that they entered into a written lease agreement in or around October 25, 2021, pursuant to which they paid rent for the Subject Property on a monthly basis in the amount of $1,995.00. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs allege that they “constantly and consistently complained to the Defendants, and each of them, about [certain] slum-housing and untenantable conditions,” and that “Defendants…failed to take timely or reasonable steps to abate and/or remedy the defects.” (Compl., ¶¶ 17-18.)

            JYK now moves for an order granting it leave to file a cross-complaint against Brochelle Hale-Corhn and Doretha Hale (jointly, the “Hale Parties”). The Hale Parties oppose. 

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (a), “[a] party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (b), “[a]ny other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (c), “[a] party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

JYK cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, subdivision (b), which provides that “[a] party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following:…(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.” 

JYK seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against the Hale Parties. The proposed cross-complaint alleges causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) express indemnity, (4) declaratory relief re: duty to defend, (5) declaratory relief re: duty to indemnify, and (6) declaratory relief. (Caro Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) JYK’s proposed cross-complaint alleges, inter alia, that “Cross-Complainant entered into a property management agreement dated June 4, 2021 with the landlord’s BROCHELLE HALE-CORHN and DORETHA HALE to manage the residential property located at 3311 3/4 77th St, Los Angeles CA 90043. The agreement includes the following provision:

4. The Owner shall: a. Indemnify and save the Agent harmless from any and all costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, suits, liabilities, damages or claim for damages, including but not limited to those arising out of any injury or death to any person or persons or damage to any property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging, including Owner in any way relating to the management premises by the Agent or the performance or exercise of any of the duties, obligations, powers or authorities herein or hereafter grated to the agent: to carry, at Owner’s sole cost and expense, such public liability, property damage and worker’s compensation insurance as shall be adequate to protect the interests of the Agent and Owner. The policies for which shall name the Agent as well as the Owner as the party insured.” (Caro Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, ¶ 9.)

The proposed Cross-Complaint further alleges that “[a]s a result, Cross-Complainant seeks indemnification from the [sic] BROCHELLE HALE-CORHN and DORETHA HALE for any claims or damages arising from their actions or omissions that may be attributed to them, which are subject to the express indemnity provision of the management contract.” (Caro Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, ¶ 10.)

            JYK asserts that “[t]he claims in the cross-complaint are directly related to the issues presented in the Plaintiffs’ action, and allowing the cross-complaint will facilitate the resolution of all related disputes in a single proceeding.” (Mot. at p. 6:18-20.) JYK asserts that “[t]he interests of justice warrant granting leave to file a Cross-Complaint as [JYK] would be prejudiced if it were forced to proceed to trial without its proper and rightful claims against the…Cross-Defendants…” (Mot. at p. 7:2-4.)

            In the opposition, the Hale Parties state that “the filing of this motion and the request by Defendant JYK for leave to file a cross-complaint, whether such motion is granted or not, has created a conflict of interest by and between Defendant JYK and Hale Defendants who were represented by the same counsel for two weeks from February 26 through March 8, 2024, when Defendant JYK was represented by its present counsel.” (Opp’n at p. 2:10-14.) The supporting declaration of the Hale Parties’ counsel, Shahrokh Mokhtarzadeh, provides, inter alia, that “I was retained by Defendant JYK on February 26, I filed the Answer I had prepared on behalf of all three defendants on February 28 and my ‘representation’ of Defendant JYK was terminated on March 8, 2024, or merely ten days after I had been retained by Defendant JYK.” (Mokhtarzadeh Decl., ¶ 8.) However, the Hale Parties do not cite to or discuss any legal authority demonstrating that there is any purported conflict of interest here. In addition, the Hale Parties’ counsel states that “[d]uring those 10 days, I did not meet anyone from Defendant JYK nor received any documents from them. I did not provide them with any ‘advice’…nor received any other information.” (Mokhtarzadeh Decl., ¶ 8.) It is unclear if the Hale Parties are asserting that the instant motion should be denied due to any purported conflict of interest.

The Hale Parties also state in the opposition that “if this Court is inclined to grant relief, Hale Defendants respectfully submit that Hale Defendants should be similarly granted relief to file their cross-complaint in this action so that their claims can similarly be duly submitted and presented herein.” (Opp’n at p. 4:10-12.) The Hale Parties state that “[t]he proposed cross-complaint of Hale Defendants is submitted in declaration of Shahrokh Mokhtarzadeh as Exhibit 1 to said declaration.” (Opp’n at p. 3:26-27.) The Court denies the Hale Parties’ purported request in their opposition for leave to file a cross-complaint. The Hale Parties have not filed a properly noticed motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

Lastly, the Hale Parties request that the “Court vacate[] the trial date pending resolution of all pending issues in this matter.” (Opp’n at p. 5:4-5.) It is unclear what pending issues the Hale Parties are referring to, or why the Court should vacate the trial date in light of such unidentified issues. The Court denies the Hale Parties’ request to vacate the trial date.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that JYK has demonstrated that it is in the interests of justice for the Court to grant JYK leave to file their proposed cross-complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, JYK’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted. The Court orders JYK to file and serve the proposed cross-complaint within 3 days of the date of this Order. 

JYK is ordered to give notice of this Order. 

DATED:  February 5, 2025                      ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court