ALEJANDRO RIVERA GARCIA VS UNIS, LLC

Complaint

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0747 Hearing Date: January 30, 2025 Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Unis, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: None

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

1. Background

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Alejandro Rivera Garcia ("Plaintiff") alleges that, while picking up goods from Defendant Unis, LLC ("Unis") for delivery, a forklift operator approached Plaintiff from behind with a heavy load of goods and dropped them onto Plaintiff's head, causing Plaintiff to suffer personal injuries. On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed amendments to the complaint naming Defendants Consolidated Staffing Solutions, Inc. ("CSS," Doe 1) and Gustavo Gonzalez ("Gonzalez," Doe 2). CSS was served with the summons and complaint by substituted service on December 18, 2024. Plaintiff has not served proof of service of the summons and complaint on Gonzalez.

2. Discussion

Unis moves for leave to file a cross-complaint against CSS and Gonzalez on the grounds that the proposed cross-complaint is for indemnity on the complaint, and therefore arises out of the same transaction or occurrence at issue in the complaint. Unis contends that good cause exists for Unis to seek indemnity against CSS and Gonzalez and that the indemnity issue was not known until after the trial date was set, as it was discovered during the course of discovery. No parties have filed an opposition to the instant motion.

A defendant in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either any cause of action that they have against the party filing the complaint or cross-complaint against them or "[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.)

After the trial date has been set, a party seeking to file a cross-complaint must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 428.50, subd. (b).) Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Id., ; 428.50, subd. (c).) Where a cause of action would otherwise be lost, leave to file a cross-complaint is appropriate even if the party was negligent in not moving for leave to file earlier. "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." (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.)

"Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear virtually always transactionally related to the main action." (Time for Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38 (Time for Living).)

Unis is seeking to file a cross-complaint against other defendants in the same action for comparative equitable indemnity. Under Time for Living, this proposed cross-complaint is transactionally related to the main action as it "effectively seeks to apportion among the parties to the indemnity action the precise liability claimed by the plaintiff in the main action." (Time for Living, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 39.) It is therefore permissible under Code of Civil Procedure ; 428.10. Although trial is set relatively soon, on March 17, 2025, there is no indication that Unis is acting in bad faith, particularly as Unis has moved to continue the trial date and Plaintiff has stipulated to continue the trial date. Leave to file the cross-complaint is therefore appropriate.

3. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Unis, LLC's motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Unis to file the cross-complaint not later than February 14, 2025.

I. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

On January 21, 2025, Unis filed a motion to continue the trial date, final status conference and all related trial deadlines, which is set to be heard on February 24, 2025. Trial is currently set for March 17, 2025. The Final Status Conference is currently set for March 10, 2025. Unis now seeks to advance the hearing on that motion on an ex parte basis. Though Unis has made no showing of irreparable harm or good cause for relief on an ex parte notice, the court notes that Unis has filed a stipulation by the parties whereby Plaintiff and Unis have stipulated to continue the current trial date and all related dates to September 2025. In light of this stipulation, and in light of the pending cross-complaint and the recent service of the complaint on Defendant CSS, the court finds that good cause exists to advance the February 24, 2025 hearing on Unis' motion to continue trial to this date.

For good cause appearing, the court GRANTS the ex parte application, advances the February 24, 2025 hearing date to this date, and grants the motion to continue trial. Trial is continued from March 17, 2025 to October 8, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Department A. The Final Status Conference is continued from March 10, 2025 to October 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A.

The parties are ordered to comply with Department A's Trial Preparation Order which will be entered in this action and is also available on the Courtroom Information page for Department A of the Compton Courthouse at www.lacourt.org.

The parties and counsel are ordered to meet and confer not later than June 1, 2025 to determine whether the parties will stipulate to hold a mediation with a private mediator and share the costs 50/50, or whether to hold a mediation with the Los Angeles Superior Court Mediation Volunteer Panel ("MVP"). If the parties agree to participate in the MVP program, they should submit a stipulation and proposed order to obtain the necessary court order required to register for the program.

If the parties do not stipulate to participate in a voluntary mediation or the court's MVP program, then the parties and counsel are ordered to hold an in-person meeting or videoconference to discuss and try to settle the case no later than August 31, 2025.

III. OSC RE SERVICE

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re Sanctions for Plaintiff's failure to file proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Gonzalez pursuant to Rule of Court 3.110, subd. (b) for March 27, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department A. The court sets an Order to Show Cause re Sanctions for Unis's failure to file proof of service of the cross-complaint on Defendants CSS and Gonzalez within thirty (30) days of filing the cross-complaint pursuant to Rule of Court 3.110, subd. (c) for March 27, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. Responsive papers to these orders to show cause must be filed and served at least 5 calendar days before the hearing.

Unis is ordered to give notice.

DATED: January 30, 2025

Hon. Elizabeth L. Bradley

Judge of the Superior Court