Filing a Cross-Complaint?

Useful Rulings on Cross-Complaint

Recent Rulings on Cross-Complaint

DENA MARSHALL VS. MARTIN JASSO ZAVALA

Code, §§ 452-453 [providing that, when the parties do not request judicial notice, a trial court has the authority to take judicial notice of any matter subject to permissive judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452]; see also Evid. Code, § 452(c).) Defendant's motion to strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

Section 128.7’s incorporation of section 1010 is compulsory not permissive.” Id. (emphasis in original). If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that CCP Section 128.7(b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the certain conditions, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firm, or parties that have violated Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b) or are responsible for the violation. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(c).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL. VS STEVEN BEAUCHMAN

Further, Plaintiffs argue this is confirmed by the circumstances leading up to the signing of the agreement, as correspondence between Plaintiffs’ counsel, AAA, and State Farm proves the agreement was meant to release Defendant only to the extent he was covered as a permissive user under the AAA policy.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MARIA E. BENITEZ JAIMES VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

. §428.50.) Defendants are ordered to file its cross-complaint, shown as Exhibit A, forthwith. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BANYAN TREES LIMITED VS. MELINDA WOOLF

This document is not properly the subject of either permissive or mandatory judicial notice. It is not a public record, nor a record of this or any other court, nor is it a document which is commonly known and subject to reliable verification. This document should have been attached to and incorporated in the Complaint. Legal Principles In ruling on a demurrer, the Court treats all properly pleaded facts in the complaint as admitted. (Blank v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

BANYAN TREES LIMITED VS. MELINDA WOOLF

This document is not properly the subject of either permissive or mandatory judicial notice. It is not a public record, nor a record of this or any other court, nor is it a document which is commonly known and subject to reliable verification. This document should have been attached to and incorporated in the Complaint. Legal Principles In ruling on a demurrer, the Court treats all properly pleaded facts in the complaint as admitted. (Blank v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

WOOD V. NEYER, ET AL.

Consequently, the proposed cross-complaint is not a compulsory cross-complaint subject to waiver pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30. The instant motion is not governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50. Instead, the proposed cross-complaint is permissive, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, subdivision (b), and governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (b).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

JERROLD MARTIN VS BRIGHTVIEW COMPANIES LLC ET AL

See CCP § 428.50: (“(a) 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.”). The demurrer on this ground accordingly is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TRACEE WALKER VS PICO RENTS, INC. DBA PARTY RENTS & SELLS

Code § 428.50 (a).) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 428.50 (b).) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 428.50 (c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

Defendant’s cross-complaint, which arises from the same transaction at issue in Plaintiff’s underlying complaint, is compulsory in nature. (See CCP § 426.10.) A motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint made “at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99 [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MHJ GROUP INC ET AL VS JI LI ET AL

These are permissive causes of action that are governed by section 428.10, et seq. and are more properly the subject of a motion for leave to amend under section 473(a). For these reasons, the court DENIES the Moving Defendants’ motion for leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

THE HYDRO COMPANY INC VS DAYTONA POWER CORP

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE HYDRO COMPANY INC VS DAYTONA POWER CORP

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CABRERA V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

. § 428.50(a)-(c).) Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50(c).) A cross-complaint is compulsory if the cause of action “arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action . . .in [the] complaint,” and this related cause of action existed at the time defendant served its answer to the complaint (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10(c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CITY OF SANTA ANA VS. ORANGE COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH

Enlarge Issues: Under the permissive provision, intervention is not proper if it would enlarge the issues in the case. (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Gerlach (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 299, 303; see also Kuperstein v. Sup.Ct. (Allstate) (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 598, 600-601 [liability insurer precluded from intervening to contest coverage in action against its insured].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

SINGER V. WELDON, ET AL.

Explanation: A cross complaint is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrences as the causes of action stated in the complaint. (Code of Civil Proc., § 426.10 subd. (c); Code of Civil Proc., § 426.30; Currie Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Bowen (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 774, 777.) Absent bad faith, the court shall permit a party to file a compulsory cross complaint at “any time during the course of the action” – even on the eve of trial. (Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 135     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.