Case Number: BC614627 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 97

42

silvia lainez,

Plaintiff,

v.

city of south gate, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC614627

Hearing Date: January 16, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion for leave to amend cross-complaint

Background

In this action, Plaintiff Silvia Lainez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on February 18, 2015, she slipped and fell on liquid that leaked on the premises of a GusestHouse Inn and Suites. Plaintiff commenced this action on March 24, 2016. The First Amended Complaint, filed December 22, 2016, alleges causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

On April 20, 2017, Defendant City of South Gate (“City”) filed a cross-complaint for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief against Dhani, Inc. (“Dhani”).

On December 14, 2017, City filed a motion for leave to amend its cross-compliant against Dhani. (The Court notes this motion and a copy of City’s First Amended Cross-Complaint [“FACC”] are separately file-stamped for December 14, 2017.)

The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Furthermore, under CCP §428.10(b), a party to an action may file a cross-complaint setting forth any cause of action he has against a person to be liable thereon if the cause of action asserted in the cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him, or asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

DISCUSSION

City seeks leave to amend the cross-complaint in order to add additional causes of action for express indemnity and breach of contract in the FACC against Dhani, as well as factual allegations supporting the proposed causes of action.

City states that after filing its initial cross-complaint, it conducted investigations and research into the title and ownership of the subject property, and discovered that City and Dhani entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement in June 1997. Based on the terms of the agreement, City contends that Dhani agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City from all claims, demands, loss, damages, costs, or expenses from injuries and loss associated with the property. (See Navarrette Decl., ¶¶7-9, Ex. 2 [Agreement].) City’s counsel, Rick Navarrette, states that after obtaining a copy of the agreement, he determined that City had additional causes of action it could assert against Dhani. (Id, ¶10.) Navarrette states that he sent a copy of the agreement to Dhani’s counsel on June 26, 2017, and attempted to informally resolve this issue with Dhani from July 2017 to August 2017. (Id., ¶¶10-11.) Subsequently, on October 11, 2017, City deposed Dhani’s PMQ, which included topics regarding the agreement. (Id., ¶12.) After preparing the proposed FACC, Navarrette states he attempted to have the parties stipulate to the proposed FACC, but Dhani’s counsel did not definitely state whether they would or would not stipulate to an amendment of the pleadings. (Id., ¶¶13-14.)

The Court finds that the request to file the proposed FACC is proper. Notice of the motion was given to the parties in the action. The declaration of City’s counsel is sufficient to support the motion, plus City has attached a red-lined version of the cross-complaint showing what allegations it seeks to add and delete from the proposed FACC. As policy favors liberally granting such motions, the unopposed motion for leave to amend the cross-complaint and file the proposed FACC is granted.

Conclusion and order

The motion is granted. City’s FACC that is filed stamped for December 14, 2017, will be corrected to reflect the correct filing date of January 16, 2018.

City is ordered to provide notice of this order.