Case Number:
19STCV15315
Hearing Date:
January 21, 2021
Dept:
S27
Parties’ Positions
Defendant Ruby Brothers Too seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Co-Defendants, Top Watch Security and Hashim Al-Balad Muhammad for indemnification and related claims.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) the motion is not timely, (b) the proposed cross-complaint fails to state a cause of action, and (c) the proposed cross-complaint is against the wrong parties.
Untimely Opposition
As an initial note, any opposition to the motion was due on or before 1/07/21.
Plaintiff did not file the opposition until 1/11/21, which led the Court not to realize there was an opposition on file until the penultimate moment.
The Court has, in an abundance of caution, read and considered the untimely opposition.
Plaintiff’s attorney is admonished that the Court will not likely do so in the future.
Timeliness
Plaintiff’s first argument is that the cross-complaint is not t
Hearing Date
January 21, 2021
Type
Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Case Number:
19STCV15315
Hearing Date:
January 21, 2021
Dept:
S27
Parties’ Positions
Defendant Ruby Brothers Too seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Co-Defendants, Top Watch Security and Hashim Al-Balad Muhammad for indemnification and related claims.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) the motion is not timely, (b) the proposed cross-complaint fails to state a cause of action, and (c) the proposed cross-complaint is against the wrong parties.
Untimely Opposition
As an initial note, any opposition to the motion was due on or before 1/07/21.
Plaintiff did not file the opposition until 1/11/21, which led the Court not to realize there was an opposition on file until the penultimate moment.
The Court has, in an abundance of caution, read and considered the untimely opposition.
Plaintiff’s attorney is admonished that the Court will not likely do so in the future.
Timeliness
Plaintiff’s first argument is that the cross-complaint is not t