Filing a Cross-Complaint?

Useful Rulings on Cross-Complaint

Recent Rulings on Cross-Complaint

NICOLE CAMPOS VS LAUSD

App. 5th 574, 589 (2017), the court recognized that “Baral did not say that a special motion to strike must always be limited to challenges within a pleaded count,” but instead adopted a permissive approach, such that “a special motion to strike, like a conventional motion to strike, may be used to attack an entire pleading….”

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WALKER VS. GAW

., § 428.50(c).) Moving Defendants California Lutheran Homes and OC United Together seek to file a permissive cross-complaint for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief against third party Ofelia J. Igasaki. The cross-claims are transactionally related to Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10(c); Time for Living Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38-39.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

CRAWFORD V. LUHRS

A motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint must be granted unless the court finds the moving party has acted in bad faith. Oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other causes are insufficient grounds to deny a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint. “We reject the view that the trial court may “exercise discretion” in the denial of a motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint under section 426.50. ¶ The legislative mandate is clear.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

YUKIO TAIRA VS HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

Further, Plaintiff argues that Matrix’s motion should not be deemed timely based on any differences with federal civil procedure, as Matrix should not be allowed to take advantage of the more permissive federal civil procedure rules since the instant motion is not being heard in federal court. (Id.) Plaintiff relies on Starview Property, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PABLO CABRAL VS GRAND PACIFIC 7-28 LLC

¿To establish a direct and immediate interest in the litigation for purposes of permissive intervention, a non-party seeking intervention must show that he or she stands to gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.) “Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case . . . .

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

HOVIK GRIGORIAN, ET AL VS. FELIX LOPEZ, ET AL

Costs on Appeal Cross-Defendants seek $1,816.35 for costs on appeal consisting of: $346.24 for the Clerk’s Transcript fee; $1,005.41 in photocopying fees for the transcript; and $464.70 in filing fees ($412.20 for the opposition fee plus 5 electronic filing fees at $10.50 each). (Id., ¶7.) At this time, the Court declines to award costs on appeal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SCHNEIDER V. ELITE DESIGNS

“…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.) The court has discretion to consolidate actions, which have common questions of fact or law. Code of Civil Procedure, § 1048(a).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JASON ALAN VS. AUSTIN CAPITAL BANK SSB

Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2 (holding that "a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form-any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue.") In evaluating the sufficiency of the Complaint, Plaintiff's litigation history is simply irrelevant. The Court intends to overrule Defendant's Demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

NICHOLAS GROSS, ET AL. VS DOE 1

In sum, “a plaintiff seeking compulsory disclosure of an allegedly libelous speaker’s identity must state a legally sufficient cause of action against the defendant, and must make a prima facie showing of the elements of that cause of action.” (ZL Technologies, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 613.) Defamation requires “the existence of falsehood.” (ZL Technologies, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 624.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

MICHELLE NAKADATE AND JOHN TOLLISON VS JAYCO INC

As a threshold matter, the court's analysis under CCP § 410.30(a) is guided by whether the subject forum selection clause is mandatory or permissive. If the clause is mandatory, the court must simply determine whether or not its enforcement would be unreasonable. However, a traditional forum nonconveniens analysis is required if the clause is permissive. See Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 206, 215; Intershop v. Communications AG v. Super. Ct. (2002) 104 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TIMED OUT LLC VS PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Timed Out also notes that one of the conditions for permissive intervention is that the intervening party “must not enlarge the issues raised by the original parties.” (Kuperstein v. Superior Court (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 598, 600.) Timed Out’s position is unpersuasive.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CLAY VS XIFIN INC [E-FILE]

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. (Proposed Order ¶¶11, 15; Notice § IV (C).) A class member may appear at the Final Approval Hearing and orally object.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ VS KASSANDRA HEREDIA, ET AL.

As Plaintiff failed to file a compulsory cross-complaint in the Unlimited Action, he is barred from seeking relief in a separate action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30. Plaintiff further argues equitable tolling is appropriate and the action should be allowed to proceed on this basis. (Oppo., p. 6:1-27.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAHMOOD MICHAEL AMIN VS CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant failed to file a compulsory cross-complaint before retaining counsel and now moves for leave to file it. A party who fails to plead a cause of action may apply for the court for leave to amend pleading or to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action due to oversight, inadvertence, mistake, or neglect. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §426.50. Such a motion must be granted unless there is substantial evidence of bad faith by the moving party. Silver Orgs. Ltd. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

VERJINEH MEHRABIANS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Indeed, the above-cited case law all rely on a compulsory/contract of adhesion, with no reasonable opportunity to reject or modify the terms. For example, the Armendariz factors generally apply where an arbitration agreement is imposed as a condition of employment. Here, on the other hand, the arbitration agreement was not a condition of admission to the facility.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

TYLER KING VS JOHN DANIEL GUEVARA, ET AL.

The private interest factors consider where the trial and enforcement of any judgment will be the most efficient and the least expensive, and include access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. (Id. at 751.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DEL MONTE FOODS INC

. §428.50(c).) The Cross-Complaint shall be filed within 10 days. b) GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant/Cross-Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated grounds for the proposed amendment to name additional cross-defendants. (Code Civ. Proc. §§428.50(c), 473(a)(1), 576.) Defendant/Cross-Complainant shall submit the First Amended Cross-Complaint within 10 days. CV-18-000415 – TORRES, EFRAIN TEJEDA VS.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

However, as the moving defendants persuasively point out, plaintiffs filed three complaints, each of which required a response pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 412.20. The fact that one of the demurrers was rendered moot by the filing of the FAC does not render the time spent on it unreasonable or excessive. Plaintiffs offer no admissible evidence that any of the work Mr. Jacobs undertook was unnecessary. And in a very real sense, plaintiffs benefit from the court's approach, in that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NATIONAL SALES NETWORK VS CLIFTON MOSELEY, ET AL.

The private and public factors appear to weigh in favor of California as the proper forum (especially given that Defendants do not argue or offer facts to the contrary): As for the private factors: The private interest factors include “the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Ford, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at 610.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRISCILLA CAMPOS VS CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC

“[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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELENA MARTINEZ VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 states, “(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. ‘(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

RAMIREZ VS. SPARTZ

., §§428.10, 428.50.) Cross-Complaint to be separately filed and served. MP to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

RAMIREZ VS. SPARTZ

., §§428.10, 428.50.) Cross-Complaint to be separately filed and served. MP to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

DENA MARSHALL VS. MARTIN JASSO ZAVALA

Code, §§ 452-453 [providing that, when the parties do not request judicial notice, a trial court has the authority to take judicial notice of any matter subject to permissive judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452]; see also Evid. Code, § 452(c).) Defendant's motion to strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

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 CCP Section 128.7(b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the certain conditions, impose an appropriate 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

    Sep 21, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 136     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.