RAEL & LETSON VS. RALPH HASKEW, CPA

17-CIV-05483 RAEL & LETSON VS. RALPH HASKEW, CPA, ET AL.

RAEL & LETSON RONALD CASSANO, CPA
STEPHEN A. DENNIS TERENCE KENNEY

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT BY RONALD CASSANO, CPA TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Cassano’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. The motion is not untimely. The proposed cross-complaint arises from the same general “series of transactions or occurrences” as the claim against Cassano, which is the damages resulting from the failure to detect the wrongful acts of Clark.

A. The Proposed Cross-Complaint Appears to State a Cause of Action.

Generally, whether a pleading states a cause of action should be decided by demurrer, not on a motion for leave to file the pleading. For purposes of this motion only, the Court declines to apply the case of Jaffe v. Huxley Architecture (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1188. The same court that decided Jaffe later limited that case to its facts. (See Platt v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Servs. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1447–48.) “[W]e see no reason to extend Jaffe beyond its own facts.” (Id. at 1449.)

The First District also confines Jaffe to cases involving the type of “special relationship” that supported the Fourth District’s holding in Jaffe.

“Without a corresponding special relationship, a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity is not subject to dismissal solely because an apportionment of fault is available through the assertion of affirmative defenses . . . . (Cross-complainant) would suffer prejudice if its cross-complaint . . . was dismissed and it was relegated to only a comparative negligence defense at trial.”

(See Paragon Real Estate Grp. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Hansen (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 177, 187.) B. Prejudice to Plaintiff Is Not Unreasonable.

This case is 16 months old. Trial is set for May 21, 2019, being continued only 14 days from the initial trial date. A trial continuance is possibly necessary, but a continuance without more does not constitute undue prejudice. R&L identifies a potential conflict of interest from the CrossComplaint, but the conflict alone does not prejudice R&L in a manner that outweighs the judicial efficiency of trying both actions together.

C. Ruling

The Motion to File a Cross-Complaint is granted. Defendant Cassano shall file his CrossComplaint no later than March 27, 2019.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *