Tentative ruling issued by Judge Kent Kellegrew on Jun. 05, 2015 in Ventura County, CA - Case no: xxxxxVTA

Overrule as to argument of compulsory cross-complaint.CCP §426.30. Cara Healey v. Scott Hallock (14-457934) is insufficiently related to this current case to require Mr. Hallock to have filed a cross-complaint in that action. The law and evidence concerning whether a defendant engaged in the intentional infliction of emotion distress has nothing to do with whether the defendants in this case violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). The context of the financial dispute is simply background for both cases. Whether the plaintiff in one of the actions prevails or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the plaintiff in the other action will prevail. A menacing voicemail is wholly different conduct from a fraudulent transfer.
Overrule as to the argument concerning the sufficiency of allegations as to the UFTA claim. Defendant Cara Healey is a proper defendant as an alleged transferee of the properties at issue in this case. Diamond Heights Village Ass'n, Inc. v. Financ….....