Case Number: BC680639 Hearing Date: March 15, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Ernest Teneyck,

Plaintiff,

v.

Altamed Health Services Corp., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC680639

Hearing Date: March 15, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion for leave to file cross-complaint

Background

This action arises out of injuries Plaintiff Ernest Teneyck (“Plaintiff”) sustained on August 28, 2017 when he was trying to close a large metal gate in the parking lot owned or operated by Defendant AltaMed Health Services Corporation (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that the gate fell on him causing him to suffer injury. The complaint, filed on October 23, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) premises liability.

On December 1, 2017, Defendant filed its answer. Defendant now moves for leave to file a proposed cross-complaint against Paul Morales Construction, Inc. (“PM Construction”), Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. (“Inter-Con”), and Roes 1-50 for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, and contribution. Plaintiff opposes this motion, and Defendant has replied.

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks to file a proposed-cross complaint against PM Construction and Inter-Con arguing that these entities may also be at fault for the injuries in this case. CCP §428.50 provides that a party shall file a cross-complaint at the time it answers, at any time before the court has set a trial date, or upon leave of court. Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (CCP §428.50(c).)

Defendant contends that PM Construction designed, constructed, and installed the subject gate. (Velazquez Decl., at ¶ 6.) Defendant also learned through discovery in this action that PM Construction named Defendant as an additional insured on its general liability insurance policy covering the date of the incident. (Ibid.) Defendant additionally contends that Plaintiff was employed by Inter-Con and was acting within the scope of his employment when the injury occurred. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Finally, Defendant argues that discovery is ongoing, and there may be additional parties which may be liable for indemnity and contribution, and thus intends to include Roes 1-50 in any cross-complaint filed.

In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that leave to file a cross-complaint as to Inter-Con should be denied. Plaintiff does not oppose the cross-complaint against PM Construction. Plaintiff argues that any cross-complaint against Inter-Con is not proper under Labor Code § 3864, and that there is no basis for a cross-complaint against Plaintiff’s employer.

The Court finds that Defendant’s request to file the proposed cross-complaint is proper as to all cross-defendants. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the cross-complaint against Inter-Con go to the merits of the cross-complaint, which the Court will not address in this motion as these arguments would be more properly addressed in the context of a demurrer. As policy favors liberally granting motions for leave to file cross-complaints and allowing parties to resolve related claims in one proceeding, the motion for leave to file the proposed cross-complaint against Paul Morales Construction, Inc., Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., and Roes 1-50 is granted.

//

//

Conclusion and order

Defendant’s motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to file the cross-complaint within ten (10) days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 15, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court