Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV00997, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00997, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs Y.L. and W.Q. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Huntington Reproductive Center Medical Group (“HRC Medical Group”) (erroneously sued as “HRC Fertility” and “HRC Fertility Management LLC”), Bayla Cao (“Cao”), and Bradford Alan Kolb, M.D. (“Dr. Kolb”) (collectively, “HRC Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that HRC Defendants were retained to perform a medical screen and egg retrieval from an approved donor (AD1121), fertilize the eggs and verify the genetics of the fertilized eggs before transplanting the embryos into Y.L. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 7-8.) Plaintiffs allege that HRC Defendants failed to verify the identity of the egg donor and that the eggs were harvested from an unidentified egg donor who was not AD1121.

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint to add Faletta & Klein Law Firm as Doe 1.

On September 10, 2024, HRC Defendants filed this motion seeking leave to file a cross-complaint against co-defendant Angels Creation Reproductive Center, Inc. aka ACRC Global (“ACRC”), Shen Li (“Li”), and Jingyu Zang (“Zang”), as well as Brian S. Klein (“Klein”) for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50, subd. (a).) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial. (Id., subd. (b).) 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. (Id., subd. (c).) Where the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, the court must grant leave to file the cross-complaint so long as defendant is acting in good faith. (Id., § 426.50.)

HRC Defendants’ proposed cross-complaint arises from the same transaction as Plaintiffs’ claims. HRC Defendants argue that they are acting in good faith by requesting that issues of comparative fault be adjudicated in this action. HRC Defendants explain that they did not bring this motion earlier due to an attempt to mediate the matter (which was ultimately unsuccessful).

ACRC, Li, and Zang claim that allowing the cross-complaint will be prejudicial to them. However, the Court disagrees, especially when ACRC also admits that the proposed cross-complaint is “a wholly unnecessary exercise” that does not assert any additional cause of action or theory of recovery. (Opp., p. 5.) Accordingly, HRC Defendants’ motion is GRANTED and HRC Defendants are ordered to file the proposed cross-complaint within 5 days of the date of this Order.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.