FIDEL PINEDA GARCIA VS OSCAR ALMANZA GUZMAN ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC584387    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Fidel Pineda Garcia (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Oscar Almanza Guzman and Ana Montoya (“Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Defendants seek leave to file a cross-complaint for interpleader. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

DISCUSSION

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, a party against whom a cause of action is asserted may file a cross-complaint to assert “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.” (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (b).) A party must obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if the party does not file the cross-complaint at the same time as the answer. The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint in the interests of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (c).)

Defendants contend they settled Plaintiff’s claims, but have been unable to resolve how to distribute the funds. Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s two prior attorneys of record, and Plaintiff’s medical providers assert conflicting claims against the settlement award. Defendants thus seek leave interplead the settlement funds.

The Court concludes that it is not in the interests of justice to permit Defendants to file the proposed cross-complaint. The dispute between Defendants and the competing claimants on the settlement sum does not concern the underlying facts of Plaintiff’s case. To permit Defendants to file a cross-complaint in interpleader in this action would greatly expand the scope of this personal injury suit. The Court therefore denies the motion. Defendants should file a separate interpleader action.

In the alternative, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, which provides that a plaintiff must bring an action to trial within five years after commencing it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.) Per Emergency rule 10, that period is extended to five years and six months. (Cal. Rules of Court, Emergency Rule 10, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case on June 5, 2015. Five years and six months since Plaintiff filed the complaint elapsed on December 7, 2020. However, as Defendants concede, Plaintiff agreed to settle his claims against Defendant. Accordingly, as “there remain[] no issues to be tried . . . ,” the five-year rule set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 is “legally irrelevant.” (Schiro v. Curci (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 840, 843-844.) The motion to dismiss is denied.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

Case Number: BC584387    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 5

Fidel Pineda Garcia v. Oscar Almanza Guzman, et al.

Case No. BC584387

Motion to be Relieved and OSC Re: Settlement

The Court’s tentative order is to grant Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved unless there is a settlement. Absent a settlement, the Court intends to set the following dates:

Final Status Conference: January 14, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: February 5, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall remain closed. Because the case was filed on June 5, 2015, trial must occur by June 5, 2020, absent a tolling agreement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310.) Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard on the motion and potential trial dates and shall submit to any decision the Court makes on these issues.