On 05/19/2017 DAJOHN ORANGE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ERIC ERNIE LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
DOES 1 TO 20
ERIC & ERNIE LLC
ARNISTICE PROTECTIVE & INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE INC.
IVIE RICKEY ESQ.
WOLF MATTHEW C. ESQ.
9/4/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT
9/19/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
3/11/2019: Proof of Personal Service
3/27/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint
5/6/2019: Minute Order
5/8/2019: Notice of Ruling
5/8/2019: Ex Parte Application
5/8/2019: Minute Order
11/16/2017: DEFENDANT ERIC & ERNIE, LLC, DBA THE ASSOCIATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
11/16/2017: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT
11/16/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT - PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH
5/19/2017: PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6/15/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (stipulation to continue trial, final status conference, and related dates) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application stipulation to continue trial...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (Joint Application re Stipulation to Continue Trial, etc.); Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff); Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC662088 Hearing Date: December 18, 2019 Dept: 4B
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS-COMPLAINT
On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff DaJohn Orange (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Eric & Ernie, LLC dba The Association (“E&E”) asserting a cause of action for premises liability arising from a fight at a nightclub on February 28, 2016. On November 16, 2017, E&E filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1-100, asserting causes of action for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On March 27, 2019, E&E added Armistice Protective & Investigative Service, Inc. as Roe 1. On August 5, 2019, E&E added X-Zero Protective Services, Inc. (“X-Zero”) as Roe 2. E&E served X-Zero by leaving a copy of the cross-complaint at its office on September 9, 2019. X-Zero filed its motion to dismiss the cross-complaint on October 31, 2019. X-Zero moves to dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410, on the grounds that E&E was not genuinely ignorant of X-Zero’s identity when it filed the cross-complaint and unreasonably delayed its prosecution of the case against X-Zero.
As an initial matter, E&E did not timely file and serve its opposition. X-Zero filed a reply brief, but if X-Zero needs additional time to respond to the opposition, it should request a brief continuance.
When a party names a new party as a Doe instead of seeking leave to amend, and that new party contends the party was dilatory and unreasonably delayed, the new party “must show specific prejudice.” (A.N. v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1069.) An alternative to naming a new party as a Doe is to seek leave to amend the pleading. A cross-complaint against a third party for indemnification is permissive. (Code Civil. Proc., § 428.10, subd. (b).) After a party answers, that party must seek leave of court to add a third party. Leave of court may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the action. (Code Civil. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).) The statute of limitations on an equitable indemnity claim “does not begin to run until liability is established in the original action.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 283.) A third option is filing a new action against the new party. The party alleging equitable indemnity can file a separate action, although there are “practical advantages of indemnity actions brought by way of a cross-complaint,” such as “permitting a complete determination of the dispute among all the parties by consolidating related evidence and matter of proof in a single judicial proceeding. (Id. at p. 286.)
X-Zero argues that because E&E allegedly knew X-Zero’s identity when it filed its cross-complaint and did not name X-Zero, E&E could not wait an unreasonable time to name X-Zero as a Roe. X-Zero argues that E&E delayed too long and there is not sufficient time for X-Zero to prepare for trial.
Assuming without deciding that E&E knew X-Zero’s identity earlier and that E&E unreasonably delayed, E&E has not shown specific prejudice caused by the delay. In addition, under section 428.50 the interests of justice weigh in favor of the equitable indemnity claim being tried with the rest of the case. The claims all arise from the same incident at the night club, so most if not all of the evidence will be the same. E&E could have been more diligent in investigating the dispute once it was sued, but X-Zero has not shown how it was prejudice by E&E lack of diligence. The parties did not describe the discovery that has been completed and remains to be completed. Because trial is set for May 15, 2020 and discovery remains open, there is sufficient time before trial to take discovery. Indeed, X-Zero states “[t]his is not a complex case.” (Mot. at p. 20.) If X-Zero were dismissed form this case, E&E could file a new action naming X-Zero as a defendant because the statute of limitations on an equitable indemnity claim has not yet begun to run. It is more efficient to allow a complete determination of the dispute in one action.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.