On 03/16/2018 a Property - Other Real Property case was filed by ROBERT P CARREON against RONALD E HASSON in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CARREON ROBERT P.
CARREON ROBERT P. AS TRUSTEE OF THE
DOES 1 TO 25
8/1/2018: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE FOR FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
8/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE
8/30/2018: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/3/2018: Case Management Statement
10/19/2018: Case Management Order
7/6/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT 2. NUISANCE 3. NEGLIGENCE 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5. DECLARATORY RELIEF
6/4/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
6/8/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
6/8/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
6/21/2018: Minute Order
5/24/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES A DECLARATION OI CHRISTOPHER J. PERRY
4/30/2018: NOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
4/18/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
4/2/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
4/2/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
3/16/2018: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT ;ETC
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-10-19 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Robert P. Carreon (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ronald Hasson (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by Ronald Hasson (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICERead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR DISMISSALRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESSRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Relocation Rescheduling; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Robert P. Carreon (Plaintiff); Carreon, Robert P. as Trustee of the (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Robert P. Carreon (Plaintiff); Carreon, Robert P. as Trustee of the (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC697640 Hearing Date: February 13, 2020 Dept: 61
Defendant Ronald B. Hasson’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is DENIED if Hasson does not present proof of timely service of this motion upon Carreon. The motion will be GRANTED if such proof is presented.
Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
“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. Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(a)–(b).) A cross-complaint filed outside either of the aforementioned times requires leave of court, which may be granted “in the interest of justice at any time during the court of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c).)
Here, Hasson filed his Answer on August 30, 2018, thus leave of court is required.
Code Civ. Proc. section 426.50 states that:
A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.
“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. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (“Silver”) (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98–99.)
The court notes as an initial matter that, although Hasson’s motion is unopposed, no proof of service appears with the motion on the court’s file. Accordingly, unless Hasson provides suitable proof that the motion was served upon Carreon, the motion will be DENIED.
Assuming that the motion was properly served, the court proceeds with its analysis as follows. Hasson seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Hasson alleging two causes of action for quiet title and trespass. Hasson claims that since he filed his answer, he determined that there was not an express easement dominant over Carreon’s property, and now sues to find an equitable or prescriptive easement. (Perry Decl. ¶¶ 6–8.) The easement area concerns the area that Carreon alleges was encroached in his own complaint. (Perry Decl. Exh. A, ¶ 7.) Hasson thus fears that the claims are “related” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 426.30, and that he therefore risks forfeiture if leave to file is not granted. (Perry Decl. ¶ 9.) The court agrees that the claims are related in this way.
Accordingly, if Hasson fails to produce proof of service of the present motion, it will be DENIED. If Hasson presents proof that the motion was timely served, it will be GRANTED based on the above analysis.