This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/04/2019 at 01:38:14 (UTC).

JOHN WESTON VS 532 RIVERDALE LLC

Case Summary

On 03/29/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by JOHN WESTON against 532 RIVERDALE LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0823

  • Filing Date:

    03/29/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

WESTON JOHN

Respondents and Defendants

532 RIVERDALE LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/11/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANT 532 RIVERDALE, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/23/2018: DEFENDANT 532 RIVERDALE, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

4/12/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

3/29/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2018
  • Answer; Filed by 532 Riverdale, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DEFENDANT 532 RIVERDALE, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by John Weston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Summons; Filed by John Weston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by John Weston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700823    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff John Weston (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant 532 Riverdale, LLC (“Defendant”).  The complaint alleges premises liability for a broken step that caused Plaintiff to fall on August 19, 2017.

On December 26, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against PRN Ambulance, Inc.; ProTransport-1, LLC; and ProTransport-1 Holding, LLC pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.50 and 428.50.

Trial is set for June 22, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to grant leave for Defendant file a cross-complaint against PRN Ambulance, Inc.; ProTransport-1, LLC; and ProTransport-1 Holding, LLC to allege a breach of contract and seek express contractual indemnity, equitable/implied indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

///

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 states, “(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.”

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)  A related cause of action is “. . . a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).)  Leave must be granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in good faith.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)

“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.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that its cross-complaint arises from the same series of transactions or occurrences as Plaintiffs complaint.  Plaintiffs complaint arises from a fall from a broken stair on Defendant’s property(Motion, p. 3:15-3:22.)  Defendant argues it leased that property to PRN Ambulance, Inc, who agreed to indemnify Defendant.  (Motion, pp. 3:15-4:1.)

The Court finds Defendant has only partially met its burden in showing the cross-complaint arises from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as Plaintiff’s complaint.  Defendant does not offer any reason why ProTransport-1, LLC or ProTransport-1 Holding, LLC should be named in the cross-complaint.  As such, the Court finds the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC700823    Hearing Date: January 27, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff John Weston (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant 532 Riverdale, LLC (“Defendant”).  The complaint alleges premises liability for a broken step that caused Plaintiff to fall on August 19, 2017.

On December 26, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against PRN Ambulance, Inc.; ProTransport-1, LLC; and ProTransport-1 Holding, LLC pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.50 and 428.50.

Trial is set for June 22, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to grant leave for Defendant file a cross-complaint against PRN Ambulance, Inc.; ProTransport-1, LLC; and ProTransport-1 Holding, LLC to allege a breach of contract and seek express contractual indemnity, equitable/implied indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

///

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 states, “(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.”

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at the time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a); see also Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)  A related cause of action is “. . . a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).)  Leave must be granted to file a compulsory cross-complaint when the defendant is acting in good faith.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.)

“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.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that its cross-complaint arises from the same series of transactions or occurrences as Plaintiffs complaint.  Plaintiffs complaint arises from a fall from a broken stair on Defendant’s property(Motion, p. 3:15-3:22.)  Defendant argues it leased that property to PRN Ambulance, Inc, who agreed to indemnify Defendant.  (Motion, pp. 3:15-4:1.)

The Court finds Defendant has only partially met its burden in showing the cross-complaint arises from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as Plaintiff’s complaint.  Defendant does not offer any reason why ProTransport-1, LLC or ProTransport-1 Holding, LLC should be named in the cross-complaint.  As such, the Court finds the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.