Filing a Cross-Complaint?

Useful Resources for Cross-Complaint

Recent Rulings on Cross-Complaint

KELKER PHARMA INC VS QURASHI

Accordingly, the Amended Cross-Complaint is compulsory. Generally, a party must 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. (Cal. Code Civ Proc § 428.50(a).) After the answer has been filed, the party must obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint. (Cal. Code Civ Proc § 428.50.) Pursuant to Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY VS ANDERS

(CCP § 412.20(a)(3).) Defendant states in his affidavit that he discovered the “fraudulent filing” of the proof of service on the court’s website on November 28, 2020. (Adler Affidavit, ¶ 2.) Yet he offers no explanation why he waited until December 15, 2020 to serve the motion on Plaintiff, and December 29, 2020 to file the motion with the court. He never filed an ex parte application or other request with the court for leave to file an untimely motion to quash.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

JEANNENE KOTT MITCHELL VS JOEL MAYNE-MALA MUKHERJI

Compulsory Cross-Complaint Defendants argue that this instant action should be dismissed in its entirety because Plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate the issues arising from the same or substantially identical transactions and require re-determination of the same or substantially identical question of law or fact. The Court finds this argument meritorious.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WILLIAM JAMES MITCHELL VS TWIN GALEXIES, LLC

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30(a).) A related cause of action is “. . . a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

JOSE BARRAGAN VS BRYAN CASTORINA. AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

., § 432.10 [“A party served with a cross-complaint may within 30 days after service move, demur, or otherwise plead to the cross-complaint in the same manner as to an original complaint.”]; California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(d) [referring to the 30-day time period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint].) On March 23, 2020, Defendants’ counsel, Justin Eiser, filed and served his Declaration re: Inability to Meet and Confer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

GLENN SONNENBERG, ET AL. VS KELLY M. SEIDLITZ,AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Code § 428.50 (a).) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 428.50 (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. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 428.50 (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The allowance of a supplemental complaint is permissive. Defendant does not oppose this motion. Since the facts alleged relate to the original cause of action, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS the motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. Plaintiff is to serve the supplemental complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

LEON BADALIAN, TRUSTEE OF THE BADALIAN FAMILY TRUST VS YNP HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendants’ proposed claims are compulsory because they arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences in the Complaint, specifically the operation of the restaurant and bar known as Choza 96 pursuant to written Business Partnership Agreements.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

SG BLOCKS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS EDI INTERNATIONAL, PC WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS EDI INTERNATIONAL CALIFORNIA, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

Plaintiff finally argues that it will be severely prejudiced if leave to amend is not granted because Plaintiff would risk forfeiture of compulsory claims. Plaintiff asserts that here, it seeks, in good faith, to amend its original complaint to add compulsory claims against Defendants. In opposition, Opposing Defendants argue that Plaintiff should not be granted leave to add allegations against PVE.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GUSTAVO GONZALES VS MCDONALD?S CORPORATION, ET AL.

CCP §§428.10, 428.50. There is no trial date in this case. While the action has been pending for some time, absent prejudice, the Court finds the motion is timely made. Plaintiff also argues the proposed cross-complaint is not ripe because the obligation to indemnify does not arise unless and until there is a judgment in the main action. Defendants may cross-complain against any person from whom they seek equitable indemnity.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

YOUNG JOON KO VS JOHN HONG LEE, ET AL.

The claims asserted in the proposed cross-complaint, which involve the same property and are based upon the same recorded documents as Plaintiff’s complaint, are compulsory. (Silver, supra 217 Cal.App.3d at 101 (“It clearly is [compulsory] since it seeks affirmative claims for relief which evolve from ‘a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated’ and thus is a related cause of action subject to forfeiture if not pleaded in the instant action as provided in section 426.30.”).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

., § 428.50, subd. (a).) The answer was filed on April 14, 2020. Cross-Complainant did not file the cross-complaint until October 13, 2020. Cross-Complainant needed to obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint, but failed to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c). However, “leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Ibid.)]

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

., § 428.50, subd. (a).) The answer was filed on April 14, 2020. Cross-Complainant did not file the cross-complaint until October 13, 2020. Cross-Complainant needed to obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint, but failed to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c). However, “leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Ibid.)]

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERT PENNER VS ALAN NITZBERG, AN INDVIDUAL DBA ALAN NITZBERG CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, ET AL.

The instant cross-complaint is compulsory since it “arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10. Pursuant to Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALFONSO AVINA VS MCDONALD?S CORPORATION, ET AL.

CCP §§428.10, 428.50. There is no trial date in this case. While the action has been pending for some time, absent prejudice, the Court finds the motion is timely made. Plaintiff also argues the proposed cross-complaint is not ripe because the obligation to indemnify does not arise unless and until there is a judgment in the main action. Defendants may cross-complain against any person from whom they seek equitable indemnity.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEPH FOX VS. CRUNCH, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

With regard to the request for permissive intervention, Plaintiffs further argue that the interests of the litigants outweigh the need for intervention because permitting intervention would cause delay and harm the class members' recovery interest. Defendant also opposes the motion. Proposed Intervenors' request for judicial notice is granted. The request for mandatory intervention under Code of Civ. Proc. § 387(d)(1) is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GUESS? RETAIL, INC. VS THE MACERICH COMPANY, ET AL.

Permissive Forum Selection Clause “[A] distinction has been drawn between a mandatory and a permissive forum selection clause for purposes of analyzing whether the clause should be enforced. A mandatory clause will ordinarily be given effect without any analysis of convenience; the only question is whether enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

JESUS HERRERA VS JOSE LUIS CORRAL, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff Jesus Herrera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jose Luis Corral (“Corral”) and Maria Elena Lopez (“Lopez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence and motor vehicle owner liability – permissive use of vehicle. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 28, 2018. On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of related case, identifying Jose Luis Corral v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ALEXANDRIA JONES VS ICM PARTNERS, ET AL.

However, even in that case, the “compulsory nature of a predispute arbitration agreement does not render the agreement unenforceable on grounds of coercion or for lack of voluntariness.” (Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1129.) Next, the court does not follow Plaintiff’s arguments made under Nelson v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SERGIO MORALES VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO, ET AL.

(CCP §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date. (CCP §428.50(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. (CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).) Leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith. Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

RAUL ACEVES, ET AL. V. LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

., including Section 1283.05 and all of the act’s other mandatory and permissive rights to discovery) or state equivalent; provided, however, that: in addition to requirements imposed by law, any arbitrator herein shall be a retired California Superior Court Judge (or state equivalent) and shall be subject to disqualification on the same grounds as would apply to a judge of such court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

SAIL EXIT PARTNERS, LLC VS. KATZ

The motion is unopposed, properly served, and the moving attorney has stated a basis for permissive withdrawal under Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700. Further, the motion satisfies the requirements of Cal. Rules Court, Rule 3.1362. Accordingly, the motion by Bruce J. Zabarauskas of Thompson & Knight LLP to be relieved as counsel of record for defendants Michael Katz and Clearstone Energy, LLC is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

REYNA ANGELITA AMEZCUA VS MCDONALD'S CORPORATION ET AL

Initial Note Ruby Brothers contends it is seeking leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint, such that the motion can only be denied upon an affirmative showing of bad faith. Ruby Brothers is incorrect. There are no compulsory cross-complaints against parties other than the plaintiff. All such cross-complaints are permissive. CCP §428.10.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

REYNA ANGELITA AMEZCUA VS MCDONALD'S CORPORATION ET AL

Initial Note Ruby Brothers contends it is seeking leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint, such that the motion can only be denied upon an affirmative showing of bad faith. Ruby Brothers is incorrect. There are no compulsory cross-complaints against parties other than the plaintiff. All such cross-complaints are permissive. CCP §428.10.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

SAYDA GONZALEZ Y GONZALEZ VS LONG BEACH PANCAKES INC.

Defendant’s citation to CCP § 426.60 is inapposite and misleading, as that section applies to failure to plead via compulsory cross-complaint. Defendant does not articulate prejudice from the delay in seeking leave to amend such as would justify denial of leave to amend. “Leave to amend is in general required to be liberally granted (citation omitted), provided there is no statute of limitations concern.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 147     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.