This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/19/2021 at 03:13:01 (UTC).

JOSUE DUBSON VS GARTH KEIL OLSON

Case Summary

On 10/13/2020 JOSUE DUBSON filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GARTH KEIL OLSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8652

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DUBSON JOSUE

Defendant

OLSON GARTH KEIL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TANZER JASON HOWARD

Defendant Attorney

OLSON SONALI

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Leave Against Plaintiff Jos...)

8/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Leave Against Plaintiff Jos...)

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint - Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

3/29/2021: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint - Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Set Aside Request for Entry of Default

1/18/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Set Aside Request for Entry of Default

Answer - Answer

2/26/2021: Answer - Answer

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/31/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

12/31/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/5/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

1/5/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

1/5/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/5/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/8/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/18/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

10/19/2020: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/13/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

10/13/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/13/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/13/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/13/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/12/2022
  • Hearing04/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint Against Plaintiff Josue Dubson and Roes 1-20 (CCP Section s 426.50; 428.10; and 428.50): Name Extension: Against Plaintiff Josue Dubson and Roes 1-20 (CCP Section s 426.50; 428.10; and 428.50); As To Parties: JOSUE DUBSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint Against Plaintiff Josue Dubson and Roes 1-20 (CCP Section s 426.50; 428.10; and 428.50): Filed By: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 08/02/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Leave Against Plaintiff Jos...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave Against Plaintiff Josue Dubson and Roes 1-20 (CCP Section s 426.50; 428.10; and 428.50) , Filed by the Defendant scheduled for 08/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 08/02/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 11/18/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint scheduled for 08/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketMotion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint; Filed by: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant); As to: JOSUE DUBSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order Set Aside Request for Entry of Default: Filed By: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 02/16/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
9 More Docket Entries
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: JOSUE DUBSON (Plaintiff); As to: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 11/09/2020; Service Cost: 150.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: JOSUE DUBSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: JOSUE DUBSON (Plaintiff); As to: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: JOSUE DUBSON (Plaintiff); As to: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: JOSUE DUBSON (Plaintiff); As to: GARTH KEIL OLSON (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC08652 Hearing Date: August 2, 2021 Dept: 26

Dubson v. Olson, et al 20STLC08652

MOTION\r\nFOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Garth Keil Olson’s Motion\r\nfor Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS TO BE\r\nFILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On\r\nOctober 13, 2020, Plaintiff Josue Dubson (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant\r\naction for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Garth Keil Olson\r\n(“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on February 26, 2021. On March 29,\r\n2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides:

“(a) A party\r\nshall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint\r\nor cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer\r\nto the complaint or cross-complaint.

(b) Any other\r\ncross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for\r\ntrial.

(c) A party shall obtain leave\r\nof court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave\r\nmay be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)\r\nFurthermore, “[a] party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the\r\nrequirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may\r\napply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a\r\ncross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the\r\naction. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave\r\nto amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if\r\nthe party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision\r\nshall be liberally construed to avoid\r\nforfeiture of causes of action.” (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 426.50, emphasis added.)

The Court of Appeals has explained: “The\r\nlegislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section\r\n426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the\r\ntrial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the\r\ncourse of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is\r\ndemonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as\r\noversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient\r\ngrounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver\r\nOrganizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.) “‘‘Bad faith,’ is\r\ndefined as ‘[t]he opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving\r\nactual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a\r\nneglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not\r\nprompted by an honest mistake . . . , but by some interested or sinister\r\nmotive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the\r\nconscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . .\r\n. it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design\r\nor ill will. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]’ \r\n[Citation.]” (Id. at 100.)\r\n\r\n

In moving for leave to file a\r\nCross-Complaint against Plaintiff, Defendant argues that he is not acting in\r\nbad faith. (Motion, Cain Decl., ¶¶7-8.) Rather, after filing their Answer,\r\nDefendant engaged in further investigation about the circumstances of the motor\r\nvehicle accident and determined that a cross-complaint against Plaintiff was\r\nappropriate. (Ibid.) The proposed Cross-Complaint is attached to the\r\nMotion and alleges causes of action for indemnification, apportionment of fault,\r\nmotor vehicle negligence and general negligence. (Id. at Exh. 1.)

Defendant’s unopposed Motion\r\ndemonstrates that the proposed cross-claims against Plaintiff arise from the\r\nsame operative facts as the claims in the Complaint. Nor is there any\r\nindication that the proposed cross-claims are raised in bad faith. Leave to\r\nfile the Cross-Complaint is appropriate.

Conclusion

Defendant Garth Keil Olson’s Motion\r\nfor Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT IS TO BE\r\nFILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer OLSON SONALI