1) Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
2) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Motion #1 – For Leave to File Cross-Complaint
The Motion by Defendants and proposed Cross-Complainants Southern California Recovery Center and TML Holdings, LLC for leave to file their proposed Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and proposed Cross-Defendant City of Dana Point (the “City”) is granted. Cross-Complainants shall electronically file and serve their proposed Cross-Complaint no later than May 30 2019.
It appears the proposed Cross-Complaint is related to the City’s complaint in this action. Even if the cross-complaint were not compulsory, however, the Court would grant leave pursuant to the liberal policy regarding the filing of cross-complaints. See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter 2010) § 6:557.
Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (Marke
Hearing Date
May 20, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
1) Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
2) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Motion #1 – For Leave to File Cross-Complaint
The Motion by Defendants and proposed Cross-Complainants Southern California Recovery Center and TML Holdings, LLC for leave to file their proposed Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and proposed Cross-Defendant City of Dana Point (the “City”) is granted. Cross-Complainants shall electronically file and serve their proposed Cross-Complaint no later than May 30 2019.
It appears the proposed Cross-Complaint is related to the City’s complaint in this action. Even if the cross-complaint were not compulsory, however, the Court would grant leave pursuant to the liberal policy regarding the filing of cross-complaints. See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter 2010) § 6:557.
Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (Marke