This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/04/2020 at 02:17:28 (UTC).

MARQUISE, INC. VS GARY M. WILSON

Case Summary

On 09/07/2018 MARQUISE, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GARY M WILSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1537

  • Filing Date:

    09/07/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MARQUISE INC. DBA SERVPRO OF HOLLYWOOD HILLS/LOS FELIZ

Defendant

WILSON GARY M.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

OSHAGAN ANAHID ANNA

Defendant Attorney

PROUT SHANEN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint)

11/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint)

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

11/3/2020: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Notice (name extension) - Notice RE CONTINUANCE

8/14/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice RE CONTINUANCE

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/02/2020

9/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/02/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

9/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

7/14/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

6/19/2020: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint - Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Shanen Prout in support of motion to for leave to file cross-complaint

6/19/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Shanen Prout in support of motion to for leave to file cross-complaint

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial and All Trial Related Deadlines

1/15/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial and All Trial Related Deadlines

Notice (name extension) - Notice of order granting request for trial continuance

1/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of order granting request for trial continuance

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

6/7/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer - Answer

7/8/2019: Answer - Answer

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/7/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - on Complaint

9/7/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Complaint

9/7/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/7/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/03/2021
  • Hearing02/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint scheduled for 11/02/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 11/02/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Minute Order (Court Order): Status Date changed from 09/02/2020 to 09/02/2020; Name Extension changed from (Court Order) to (Court Order); As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/02/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/01/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 01/05/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/10/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 09/02/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketDue to Clerical Error, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Clerical Error was rescheduled to 02/03/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketNotice RE CONTINUANCE; Filed by: Marquise, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Gary M. Wilson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 01/15/2020
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 10/01/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Gary M. Wilson (Defendant); As to: Marquise, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Marquise, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Gary M. Wilson (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/28/2019; Service Cost: 102.11; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Marquise, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Gary M. Wilson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Marquise, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC11537    Hearing Date: November 02, 2020    Dept: 26

Marquise, Inc. v. Wilson, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

(CCP § 428.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Gary Wilson’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. CROSS-COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

ANALYSIS:

On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff Marquise, Inc. dba Servpro of Hollywood Hills/Los Feliz (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, common counts and fraud arising from agreement to perform water mitigation services against Defendant Gary Wilson (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on July 8, 2019. Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint on June 19, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides:

“(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.

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

(Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)

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

The Court of Appeals has explained: “The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.) “‘‘Bad faith,’ is defined as ‘[t]he opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . ., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 100.)

Discussion

This Motion is brought pursuant to subdivision (c), which “addresses all other cross-complaints and provides that they can only be filed with leave of court which may be granted ‘in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.’ [Citation.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).) Defendant moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff caused damage to Defendant’s property during the performance of the water mitigation services. (Motion, Prout Decl., Exh. A.) The proposed Cross-Complaint alleges a single cause of action for negligence against Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

The Motion demonstrates that the proposed cross-claims against Plaintiff arise from the same operative facts as the claims in the Complaint. Namely, all the claims arise out of the parties’ agreement for Plaintiff to perform and Defendant to pay for water mitigation services. (Id. at ¶¶2-5 and Exh. A.) There is nothing to show that Defendant’s request for leave to file the Cross-Complaint is brought in bad faith.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. The Cross-Complaint is to be filed and served within 20 days’ service of this order.

Moving party to give notice.