Filing a Cross-Complaint?

Useful Rulings on Cross-Complaint

Recent Rulings on Cross-Complaint

NICHOLAS V. MORETTA VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

., §§ 412.20, subd. (a)(3), 428.50, subd. (a), 432.10.) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., §428.50, subd, (b).) If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

201- CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

Section 128.7’s incorporation of section 1010 is compulsory not permissive.” Id. (emphasis in original). If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the certain conditions, impose an appropriate monetary sanction upon the attorneys, law firm, or parties that have violated Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b) or are responsible for the violation. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(c).

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

However, “a compulsory predispute arbitration agreement is not rendered unenforceable just because it is required as a condition of employment or offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.” (Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1127; Serpa v. California Surety Investigations, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 695, 704 [the “adhesive aspect of an agreement is not dispositive. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK, A PUBLIC AGENCY

“In civil litigation generally, the question whether a person must be joined as a party to a suit is governed by the compulsory joinder statute, section 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PAULINA VEGA VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

Orozco asserts that he “meets the requirements for both mandatory and permissive intervention.” (Id. at p. 12:24-25.) A. Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 387 sets forth the requirements and procedures for intervention by a non-party in an existing case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BARBOT V. CONWELL

“…Consolidation under section 1048 is permissive, and the trial court granting consolidation must determine whether the consolidation will be for all purposes or will be limited. (General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 92, 52 Cal.Rptr. 460, 416 P.2d 492.)” (Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196, fn.5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CAMPBELL VS FORTUNEBUILDERS INC

The notice and proposed order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement shall be amended such that a written objection is permissive, not mandatory. (Exhibit A, ¶6; Exhibit B, Pages 8-9.) A class member may appear at the Final Approval Hearing and orally object. The parties may not deem an oral objection invalid by stipulation. (Exhibit B, Notice Pages 8-9.) The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled November 6, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PENNINGTON VS SURFSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL APC

., including section 1283.05 and all of the Act's other mandatory and permissive rights to discovery). (ROA 12, Ex. A, ¶ 2 (underline added).) The problem with this provision in this case, according to Plaintiff, is that, while cost-sharing may be appropriate where the claims at issue pertain to general common law such as breach of contract [see Chin, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Emp. Lit. (TRG 2019) ¶ 18:621.22, citing Giuliano v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELMAR PEREZ VS WB SIMI VALLEY CDJR, LLC, ET AL.

“[A] compulsory pre-dispute arbitration agreement is not rendered unenforceable just because it is required as a condition of employment or offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis.” (Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1127.) However, the fact that an arbitration agreement is mandatory for employment may be a factor in determining that it is procedurally unconscionable. (See, e.g., Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corp. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 387, 393; Armendariz v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MELVYN GOLDSMITH, ET AL. V. HOPE RANCH PARK HOMES ASSOCIATION

While the Hope Ranch Rules state that any determination by the Board regarding a view dispute “shall be binding on the parties,” the use of the term “may” indicates that it is permissive rather than mandatory for a member to bring such a dispute to the Board for resolution. “Generally speaking, of course, the word ‘may’ is permissive – you can do it if you want, but you aren’t being forced to – while the word ‘shall is mandatory . . . .” County of Orange v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

PARMANAND KUMAR VS RODOLFO CERRILLO LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY

Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JAMES R MELVILLE ET AL VS OLYMPUS AMERICA INC ET AL

(k) To any person pursuant to a subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process if, before the disclosure, the agency reasonably attempts to notify the individual to whom the record pertains, and if the notification is not prohibited by law. . . . (Civ. Code, § 1798.24 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JULIA SARADJIAN, ET AL. VS ARMEN KHACHATRYAN, ET AL.

The complaint alleges negligence and permissive use liability for an automobile collision that occurred on May 12, 2018. On June 11, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Armen Khachatryan filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Julia Saradjian alleging negligence. On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff Helen Titizian and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Julia Saradjian filed a motion to quash a deposition subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

KENNETH A LOVEMAN VS AILEEN LEAVITT

If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described in CCP section 428.50(a), the party must obtain leave of court to file the cross-complaint. (CCP § 428.50(c).) If the proposed cross-complaint is permissive, leave may be granted “in the interest of justice” at any time during the course of the action. (CCP § 428.50(c).) If the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory, leave shall be granted so long as defendant acted in good faith. (CCP § 426.50.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHICUACE CHICUACE VS MR. JIMMY A. GOMEZ, ET AL.

., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).) Defendants present evidence that they only learned of this action in February, 2020, following service of a trial setting notice. (Motion, Gomez Decl., ¶¶1-3; Mata Decl., ¶¶1-3.) Therefore, good cause exists for the timing of the instant Motion to Quash. Conclusion Specially Appearing Defendants Jimmy A. Gomez and Leonard Mata’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED. Court clerk to give notice. *Hearing may be heard at 2:00 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

GLENDALE FRENCH BAKERY, INC. VS. RICK SALVATORE, ET AL

The decision to grant or deny a permissive cross-complaint under Code of Civ. Proc. §§428.50 & 428.10 is solely within the discretion of the Court, and “[t]he 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

It legitimizes a myriad of situations the Legislature may not have cared to spell out, by establishing the principle of permissive disclosure when specifically authorized by law.” (Shaddox v. Bertani (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1414 [2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808] (Shaddox).) (McNair v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1154, 1165 [bold emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ASHLEY KING VS MIGUEL CASTRO

Plaintiff alleges negligence and liability for permissive use of a vehicle in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on March 12, 2017. On June 5, 2020, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

OLIVIER SAINT-VICTOR VS SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED

This is permissive language. While a school district must abide by certain requirements if it chooses to provide adult education, it is not mandated to provide adult education at all. Therefore, CAEP funds used in DACE are “categorically-funded projects which are not required by federal or state statutes.” Opp. at 11. Petitioners analogize to Zalac and Kamin.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

WANDA NELSON V. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, ET AL.

Further, the enactment at issue must be obligatory, rather than merely discretionary or permissive; it must require, rather than merely authorize or permit, that a particular action be taken or not taken. (Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 490, 498.) The mandatory duty liability of a public entity under Section 815.6 is not predicated on the theory of vicarious liability under Government Code section 815.2 for the torts of its employees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

DREAMLAND HOLDING, LLC VS EDWARD SARKISSIAN

CCP 415.20(b); CCP 412.20(a)(3); CCP 430.40(a). Defendant failed to timely respond. On 11/5/19, Plaintiff filed and served a Request for Entry of Default which was entered on 11/5/19. (Brown Decl., ¶5, Ex.2). On 12/17/19, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default Judgment which was rejected. On 12/18/19, Plaintiff filed and served a Request for Entry of Default Judgment. Brown Decl. ¶7, Ex.3). On 12/20/19, Plaintiff filed and served another Request for Entry of Default. (Brown Decl. ¶8, Ex.4).

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

FATIMA PATRICIA CISNEROS DE MANCIA ET AL VS GARY TAGLYAN ET

Precluding defendant from filing a compulsory cross-complaint is not an appropriate response to its allegedly insufficient discovery responses which plaintiffs failed to timely raise in the appropriate motion. Plaintiffs’ argument that defendant acted in bad faith is rejected as a ground for denying this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Therefore, defendant’s motion to file a cross-complaint is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FATIMA PATRICIA CISNEROS DE MANCIA ET AL VS GARY TAGLYAN ET

Precluding defendant from filing a compulsory cross-complaint is not an appropriate response to its allegedly insufficient discovery responses which plaintiffs failed to timely raise in the appropriate motion. Plaintiffs’ argument that defendant acted in bad faith is rejected as a ground for denying this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Therefore, defendant’s motion to file a cross-complaint is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LIZA KATHRYN WOMACK VS FIRST ACCESS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, ET AL.

Finally, the Court notes the Evidence Code section 452 is entirely permissive. Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion not to take judicial notice of the FAE Defendants’ Exhibit 1 and any facts which the FAE Defendants attempt to derive from it. Next, the FAE Defendants argue that the breach of contract claim must fail because Plaintiff does not allege facts showing breach, Mr. Ahr’s performance, causation, or damages. The FAE Defendants contend that there are no facts showing that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 124     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.