This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/08/2019 at 16:44:45 (UTC).

MARY CANNON VS ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/07/2017 MARY CANNON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN, YOLANDA OROZCO and CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4262

  • Filing Date:

    06/07/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DENNIS J. LANDIN

YOLANDA OROZCO

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CANNON MARY

Defendants and Respondents

KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII LLC

ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS LLC

DOES 1 TO 20

MIXED CHICKS LLC

KIDS FROM THE VALLEY IV LLC

KIDS FROM THE VALLEY IV LLC DOE 2

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

KIDS FROM THE VALLEY IV LLC

Defendants and Cross Defendants

MIXED CHICKS LLC

ROES 1 THROUGH 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Plaintiff and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

FLORES ZOJEILA ITZEL

MAHGEREFTEH JENNIFER ESQ

MAHGEREFTEH JENNIFER LANA

PLESSALA BRIAN MARTIN

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MAHGEREFTEH JENNIFER ESQ

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

PLESSALA BRIAN M. ESQ.

MILLER WEYD-ANNE

FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY

FLORES ZOJEILA ITZEL

PLESSALA BRIAN MARTIN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PLESSALA BRIAN M. ESQ.

MILLER WEYD-ANNE

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY

FRIEDENTHAL COX & HERSKOVITZ LLP

 

Court Documents

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

12/4/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

12/3/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

12/3/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT, MIXED CHICKS, LLC'S MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF KIDS FROM THE VALLEY IV, LLC

12/2/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT, MIXED CHICKS, LLC'S MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF KIDS FROM THE VALLEY IV, LLC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CROSS-DEFENDANT MIXED CHICKS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME...)

11/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CROSS-DEFENDANT MIXED CHICKS, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME...)

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/6/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

10/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

8/9/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

Notice of Change of Firm Name

6/7/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Notice of Ruling

4/10/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice - of Non-Oppisition to First Amended Cross-Complaint

8/28/2018: Notice - of Non-Oppisition to First Amended Cross-Complaint

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

3/6/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

DEFENDANT ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC'S AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND EXPRESS INDEMNITY AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO INCLUDE BRCACH OF CONTRACT

6/1/2018: DEFENDANT ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC'S AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND EXPRESS INDEMNITY AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO INCLUDE BRCACH OF CONTRACT

MIXED CHICKS, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS; ETC.;

8/6/2018: MIXED CHICKS, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS; ETC.;

SUMMONS -

6/7/2017: SUMMONS -

Summons on Cross Complaint -

7/13/2017: Summons on Cross Complaint -

DEFENDANTS ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/13/2017: DEFENDANTS ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

DEFENDANT ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC?S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND EXPRESS INDEMNITY AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

7/13/2017: DEFENDANT ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC?S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND EXPRESS INDEMNITY AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

37 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2020
  • Hearing06/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • Hearing12/16/2019 at 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • Hearing12/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • Hearing12/13/2019 at 13:30 PM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2019
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to the Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint of Kids from the Valley IV, LLC); Filed by Mixed Chicks, LLC (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6); Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant); Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (Doe 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4); Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant); Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (Doe 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 5); Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant); Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (Doe 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3); Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant); Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (Doe 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1); Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant); Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (Doe 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
58 More Docket Entries
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketAnswer to Cross-Complaint; Filed by Mixed Chicks, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANTS ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT ANJAC FASHION BUILDINGS, LLC AND KIDS FROM THE VALLEY VII, LLC S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND EXPRESS INDEMNITY AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Anjac Fashion Buildings LLC (Defendant); Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • DocketSummons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Mary Cannon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC664262    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff Mary Cannon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC (“Anjac”) and Kids From The Valley VII, LLC (“Kids VII”), asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

On July 13, 2017, Anjac and Kids VII filed an answer to the complaint. Anjac and Kids VII also filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC (“MCL”).

On March 2, 2018, MCL filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, naming Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (“Kids IV”) as Doe 2.

On June 1, 2018, Anjac and Kids VII filed a first amended cross-complaint.

On June 24, 2018, Anjac and Kids VII filed a second amended cross-complaint.

On September 5, 2018, the Court, on its own motion, struck the second amended cross-complaint. The Court also sustained MCL’s demurrer to the 1st and 4th COAs in the first amended cross-complaint without leave to amend.

On September 11, 2018, MCL filed an answer to the first amended cross-complaint.

On November 5, 2019, Kids IV filed an answer to the complaint. Kids IV also filed a cross-complaint against MCL for express written indemnity, full or partial equitable indemnification, declaratory relief, and breach of contract.

On November 15, 2019, the Court granted MCL’s motion for summary judgment on the first amended cross-complaint of Anjac and Kids VII.

Trial is set for December 16, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC (“MCL”) moves to strike the cross-complaint of Cross-Complainant Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (“Kids IV”). MCL argues Kids IV filed its cross-complaint past the deadline stated in C.C.P. §428.50 and did not obtain leave of court to file the cross-complaint. MCL also argues Kids IV unreasonably delayed in filing the cross-complaint. Kids IV was brought in as a “Doe” Defendant on March 6, 2018, and Kids IV did not file its cross-complaint until November 5, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §436 provides, as follows:

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

(a)

(b)

DISCUSSION

Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC (“MCL”) moves to strike the cross-complaint filed by Cross-Complainant Kids From The Valley IV, LLC (“Kids IV”) on November 5, 2019. 

C.C.P. §428.50 provides, as follows:

(a)

(b)

(c)

Kids IV filed its answer to the complaint of Plaintiff Mary Cannon (“Plaintiff”) on November 5, 2019. Kids IV also filed a cross-complaint against MCL on November 5, 2019.

Kids IV improperly filed its cross-complaint against MCL. As set forth above, C.C.P. §428.50(c) provides, in pertinent part, that a “party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified” in C.C.P. §428.50(a) or (b). The time specified in C.C.P. §428.50(a) does not apply because Kids IV’s cross-complaint is not asserted against Plaintiff. The time specified in C.C.P. §428.50(b) also does not apply because the court set a date for trial before Kids IV filed the cross-complaint. (Declaration of Lee ¶¶5-6.) Kids IV was required to seek leave of court to file the cross-complaint. (C.C.P. §428.50(c).) Kids IV never sought leave of court to file the cross-complaint. (Declaration of Lee ¶8.)

In opposition, Kids IV argues the cross-complaint was filed in compliance with C.C.P. §428.50. Kids IV appears to argue that the time specified in C.C.P. §428.50(a) applies. Kids IV contends that it “filed its Cross-Complaint on November 5, 2019, the same date that it formally appeared in the case and filed its answer.” Kids IV argues it did not need to seek leave of court prior to filing the cross-complaint because it filed the cross-complaint “concurrently with its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.” (Opposition, pg. 4.) However, Kids IV’s reliance on C.C.P. §428.50(a) is misplaced. The time specified in C.C.P. §428.50(a) only applies when the cross-complaint is asserted “against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint” against the cross-complainant. Kids IV’s cross-complaint is asserted against MCL. MCL is not one of the parties that filed a complaint or cross-complaint against Kids IV. (See Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial §§6:552-6555 (“Right to file against plaintiff or cross-complainant at time of answer: If the cross-complaint is filed before or at the same time as the answer, it may be filed as a matter of right – i.e., without leave of court…[¶] Right to file against third parties until first trial date: Cross-complaints against third party cross-defendants (e.g., for equitable indemnity) may be filed without leave of court any time before the court set the first trial date…[¶] When leave of court required: Except as allowed by the preceding paragraphs…., leave of court must be obtained to file a cross-complaint.”).)

Based on the foregoing, MCL’s motion to strike Kids IV’s cross-complaint is GRANTED.

MCL is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

Case Number: BC664262    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff Mary Cannon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC alleging negligence and premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on September 25, 2015.

On July 13, 2017, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC seeking express indemnity, equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to her complaint renaming Doe 2 as Defendant Kids from the Valley IV, LLC.

On June 1, 2018, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC filed a first amended cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC to add an additional cause of action for a breach of contract.

On July 24, 2018, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC filed a second amended cross-complaint.

On September 5, 2018, the Court sustained Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC’s demurrer to the express indemnity and breach of contract causes of action in the first amended cross-complaint of Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC, without leave to amend.  On this same date, the Court struck the second amended cross-complaint because it was filed without leave of court.

On September 17, 2018, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC filed a notice of errata purporting to correct prior pleadings and discovery such that Kids from the Valley VII, LLC is to be named Kids from the Valley IV, LLC.

On September 25, 2019, Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC filed an objection to the September 17, 2018 notice of errata.

On August 26, 2019, Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC filed a motion summary judgment against Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLCpursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

On October 1, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC’s motion for summary judgment to November 15, 2019.

On November 5, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kids from the Valley IV, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC seeking express indemnity, equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief, as well as alleging a breach of contract.

Trial is set for December 16, 2019.

PARTYS REQUEST

Cross-Defendant Mixed Chicks, LLC asks (“Chicks”) the Court to grant summary judgment in Chicks favor and against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (collectively “Anjac) because Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy in this action is workers’ compensation.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).)  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Ibid.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Procedural Grounds

The Court initially notes that Anjac’s opposition is procedurally defective for two reasons.  

First, the opposition was filed and served late.  Specifically, it was filed and served by U.S. mail on November 5, 2019, but was due to be served and filed no later than November 1, 2019 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(2).  

Second, no separate statement was filed and served concurrently with the opposition.  This separate statement is a necessary requirement in opposing a motion for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3).  “Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.”  (Ibid.)  The Court does exercise its discretion in granting the motion on this ground.  However, the Court also analyzes the merits of the motion for sake of thoroughness.

Substantive Grounds

Workers’ compensation provides the exclusive remedy against an employer for an injury sustained by an employee in the course of employment and compensable under the workers’ compensation law. (Labor Code §§ 3600, subd. (a), 3602, subd. (a); Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 812-813.)

Labor Code section 3864 provides that i]f an action as provided in this chapter prosecuted by the employee . . . against the third person results in judgment against such third person, or settlement by such third person, the employer shall have no liability to reimburse or hold such third person harmless on such judgment or settlement in absence of a written agreement so to do executed prior to the jury.”  The Court of Appeal in City of Oakland v. Delcon Associates (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1126, 1128-1129, makes clear that “[t]he purpose of [section 3864] is to eliminate an employer’s liability under an equitable or implied indemnity theory when its employee is injured during the course and scope of employment due to the negligence or partial negligence of a third party.”

“The purpose of a declaratory judgment is to serve some practical end in quieting or stabilizing an uncertain or disputed jural relation.”  (Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 647.)

Chicks’ undisputed material facts establish the following.  Plaintiff alleges she was injured from a trip-and-fall that occurred on September 25, 2015 on property owned, managed, and operated by Anjac.  (UMF No. 1, p. 2:6-2:16.)  Chicks employed Plaintiff as a warehouse manager and Plaintiff was acting in her capacity as an employee of Chicks at the time of Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall.  (UMF No. 2, p. 2:18-2:26.)  Chicks had a workers’ compensation insurance policy in place at the time of Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall.  (UMF No. 3, p. 3:1-3:7.)

Chicks’ undisputed material facts also establish the following.  On May 31, 2018, Anjac served a first amended cross-complaint on Chicks alleging express indemnity, equitable indemnity, declaratory relief, and breach of contract.  (UMF No. 5, pp. 3:20-4:8.)  On September 5, 2018, the Court sustained Chicks’ demurrer to Anjac’s express indemnity and breach of contract causes of action without leave to amend because of the absence of any contractual relationship between Chicks and Anjac.  (UMF No. 6, p. 4:10-4:24.)  On September 11, 2018, Chicks filed its answer to the remaining causes of action in the first amended cross-complaint, in which answer Chicks asserted an affirmative defense pursuant to Labor Code section 3864.  (UMF No. 7, pp. 4:26-5:10.)

The Court finds Chicks has met its burden of proof.  Chicks has submitted sufficient evidence showing it employed Plaintiff at the time of Plaintiff’s injury and Plaintiff was working within the scope of her employment at the time of her injury.  Chicks have also submitted sufficient evidence showing that there was no express agreement between Chicks and Anjac providing for express indemnity of Plaintiff’s injuries.  Accordingly, Anjac’s equitable indemnity cause of action is barred.  Similarly, Anjac cannot maintain an uncertain or disputed jural relation for which declaratory relief may be sought. As such, the burden shifts to Anjac to oppose Chicks’ showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Anjac’s only argument against granting the motion is that Cross-Defendant Kids from the Valley VII, LLC (“Kids 7”) was incorrectly named as a party in this action and should have truly be named Kids from the Valley IV, Inc. (“Kids 4”).  (Opposition, p. 5:1-5:19.)  The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.  Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids 7 have a pending cross-complaint against Chicks, which  has not been dismissed or otherwise withdrawn.  Their notice of errata attempting to effect a retroactive revision to the cross-complaint is ineffective, not only because of its attempt to modify pleadings that were filed months or years earlier but also because the name change is not a mere correction.  Kids 7 and Kids 4 appear to be entirely separate entities.  The renaming of one entity to replace another is a substantive change that results in a new pleading.  (See Cohen v. Superior Court (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 650, 656.)  In the current posture of this case, after the Court sustained a demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint, Anjac and Kids 7 were required to obtain permission to amend their cross-complaint to replace their names with Kids 4 as the sole cross-complainant.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 472, subd. (a).)  But they have not done that.  Chicks is, thus, entitled to challenge the existing cross-complaint which Anjac and Kids 7 have brought against it. 

According, the Court agrees with Chicks that there is no basis to deny the motion for summary judgment as moot.  To the contrary, Chicks has demonstrated that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the cross-complaint brought by Defendants/Cross-Complainants Anjac Fashion Buildings, LLC and Kids from the Valley VII, LLC, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

The motion is GRANTED.

Chicks is ordered to give notice of this ruling.