On 03/07/2019 SAEED ABOLGHASEMI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against IVANIA PINEDA. 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MOGHTADER MICHAEL HOMAYOUN
GOLDSTEIN JENNIFER MARIE
11/18/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
11/27/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint
12/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint)
7/23/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
8/12/2020: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name
8/1/2019: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint - Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint
4/25/2019: Answer - Answer
4/25/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial
3/29/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
3/7/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/7/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
3/7/2019: Complaint - Complaint
3/7/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
3/7/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearing04/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by: Ivania Pineda (Defendant); New Firm Name: STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGORead MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Jennifer Marie Goldstein (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Hartsuyker Stratman Williams-Abrego to STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGORead MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order: As To Parties: removedRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/10/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/23/2020Read MoreRead Less
DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 04/29/2021 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint scheduled for 12/05/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 12/05/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint; Filed by: Ivania Pineda (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Ivania Pineda (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Saeed Abolghasemi (Plaintiff); As to: Ivania Pineda (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 03/27/2019; Service Cost: 115.10; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Saeed Abolghasemi (Plaintiff); As to: Ivania Pineda (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Saeed Abolghasemi (Plaintiff); As to: Ivania Pineda (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Saeed Abolghasemi (Plaintiff); As to: Ivania Pineda (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STLC02382 Hearing Date: December 05, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
(CCP § 428.50)
Defendant Ivania Pineda’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. CROSS-COMPLAINT TO BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for motor vehilcle negligence.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Grant Defendant leave to file compulsory cross-complaint on the grounds that a Cross-Complaint was not filed earlier due to counsel’s mistake and inadvertence.
OPPOSITION: The mistake of Defendant’s two attorneys in failing to communicate about the filing of the Cross-Complaint should not be at Plaintiff’s expense.
REPLY: None filed as of December 2, 2019.
On March 7, 2019, Plaintiff Saeed Abolghasemi (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Ivania Pineda (“Defendant”). Defendant filed her Answer on April 25, 2019. On August 1, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition on November 18, 2019.
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.) 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.]” (Id.)
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.)
As attested to by Defendant’s counsel, and conceded by Plaintiff, the failure to file a Cross-Complaint at the time Defendant answered was the result of her attorneys’ mistake and inadvertence. (Motion, Patel Decl., ¶¶2-4.) Specifically, the attorneys Defendant hired to file a claim with her insurance company and the attorney Defendant hired to defend this action failed to communicate about the need to file a Cross-Complaint. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s opposition admits to these circumstances and makes no argument that the request to file a Cross-Complaint is in bad faith. (Opp., pp. 1-3.) Plaintiff simply argues in opposition that he should not be at his expense. Yet, what “expense” is to be had by the filing of the Cross-Complaint is not explained. Plaintiff does not argue, let alone provide evidence, that he will be prejudiced by the filing of the Cross-Complaint. Trial in this matter is not scheduled until September 3, 2020 providing the parties ample time to prepare. Plaintiff, therefore, offers no legal basis to deny the motion.
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Cross-Complaint to be filed within ten (10) days.
Moving party to give notice.