Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV08609, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 23STCV08609 Hearing Date: November 25, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: November
25, 2024
CASE NAME: Donoco
Investments, LLC, et al. v. Law Offices of Stefanie Stelnick, et al.
CASE NO.: 23STCV08609
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendants
Steffanie Stelnick and Law Offices of Steffanie Stelnick
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of November 19, 2024
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order granting leave to file a proposed cross-complaint against Plaintiffs.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED;
2. The
Proposed Cross-Complaint submitted on August 2, 2024 is deemed filed this date.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Donoco Investments, LLC and
Donald Okada (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants Law Offices of
Steffanie Stelnick, Steffanie Stelnick, Dijulio Law Group, David Dijulio,
Willdan Engineering, and David Knell (Defendants) with two causes of action
for: (1) Professional Negligence, and (2) Breach of Contract.
According to the Complaint, Defendants represented
Plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit to establish Plaintiffs’ rights to an easement by
necessity. Plaintiffs allege that they lost their case due to a myriad of
mistakes committed by Defendants.
On July 6, 2023, Defendants Dijulio Law Group and David
Dijulio (DLG Defendants) filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint.
On July 31, 2023, Defendants Law Offices of Steffanie
Stelnick and Steffanie Stelnick (Stelnick Defendants) filed an Answer.
On August 1, 2023, Defendants Willdan Engineering and David
Knell (erroneously sued as David KNEEL) (Willdan Defendants) filed an Answer.
On August 18, 2023, DLG Defendants filed a First Amended
Cross-Complaint.
On November 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Answer to DLG
Defendants’ Cross-Complaint.
On August 2, 2024, Stelnick Defendants filed the instant
motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Oppositions were due on or before November
12, 2024. As of November 19, 2024, the court has not received any oppositions.
LEGAL STANDARD:
A cross-complaint may be either permissive or compulsory.
Compulsory cross-complaints are based on allegations arising out of the same
transactions or occurrences as the causes of action which the plaintiff alleges
in his or her complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., (CCP) § 426.10, subd.
(c).)¿Compulsory cross-complaint causes of action must exist at the time an
answer to the original cross-complaint is required.¿(CCP § 426.30, subd. (a).)¿
All other cross-complaints are permissive.¿(CCP § 428.10.) If a party fails to
file any cross-complaint before or when they file an answer, they must move the
court for leave to file a cross-complaint.¿ (CCP § 428.50.) The court “shall”
grant leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint, as long as the party
demonstrates that, notwithstanding being late, the motion for leave is brought
in good faith.¿ (CCP § 426.50.)¿The court “may” grant leave to file a
permissive cross-complaint “in the interest of justice at any time during the
course of the action.”¿ (CCP § 428.50, subd. (c).)¿¿
A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid
forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court.¿ (Silver Orgs. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.
App. 3d 94, 98-99.) ¿A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the
course of the action must be granted unless substantial evidence of bad faith
is demonstrated. ¿(Ibid.)
ANALYSIS:
Stelnick Defendants contend that leave is warranted because
this is a compulsory cross-complaint and there is no prejudice to any party for
granting leave to file the proposed cross-complaint.
Compulsory vs.
Permissive
Here, the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory because it
asserts claims between Plaintiffs and the Stelnick Defendants pertaining to the
easement litigation. The Stelnick Defendants seek payment of their fees for
services rendered in the underlying litigation that is subject Plaintiffs’
current lawsuit.
Therefore, the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory.
Bad Faith
Here, there is insufficient evidence of bad faith. The
Stelnick Defendants repeatedly reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to try to
stipulate to allow leave to file the proposed cross-complaint. (Brooks Decl. ¶¶
3-6.) While this undoubtedly shows delay, there is no other evidence before the
court of bad faith.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Stelnick Defendants’
motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED;
2. The
Proposed Cross-Complaint submitted on August 2, 2024 is deemed filed this date.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court