Case Number: 19STCV02690 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 Dept: 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
CASEY CONWAY v. CMB DEVELOPERS, INC., et al. (19STCV02690)
DEFENDANT RADIX FIRE PROTECTION INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
Counsel for moving party Radix Fire Protection Inc.: Murchison, etc. (Gina Bazaz; Celim Huezo)
Counsel for opposing party Globe Fire Sprinkler Corporation: Lewis, etc. (Karl Loureiro; Cameron Kalunian)
Other counsel: Omitted.
Defendant Radix’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. A stand-alone version of the cross-complaint shall be filed forthwith. The cross-complaint is deemed served this date on all parties served with the motion. A responsive pleading shall be filed and served within 15 days.
Here, Radix contends that its cross-complaint arises out of the same incident alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Radix argues that because CMB and Globe sold, designed and/or manufactured portions of the sprinkler fire protection system, they are at least partially responsible for the incident and Plaintiff’s alleged property damage, and the causes of action Radix seeks to assert against them arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, Radix argues that the interest of justice and judicial economy will be best served by allowing the filing of the cross-complaint so that all claims and causes of action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence can be fully and finally litigated between all the parties in this action.
Defendant Globe ‘s opposition claiming Radix’s motion does not conform with CRC 3.1324(b) is borderline frivolous because that rule applies to amended pleadings, not original cross-complaints. Instead, the standard of CCP §428.10 applies, and Radix only needs to show that its causes of action proposed against CMB and Globe arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him. The Court finds that Radix has met this burden.
Globe also argues that the “new facts” identified by Radix concerning the identity of the manufacturer of the subject sprinkler head have been in the possession of Radix since Radix purchased the products prior to the construction at issue in this litigation and thus, Radix has unreasonably delayed the presenting of the proposed cross-complaint. Further, Globe argues that the proposed cross-complaint will prejudice defendant Globe as it will likely lead to further extensive discovery by all parties as to the new party and impair Globe’s preparation for trial.
The court finds that Radix’s proposed cross-complaint would not prejudice Globe. Trial is scheduled for October 19, 2020, approximately eight months after the date of this hearing. The amount of time should be sufficient for Globe to conduct discovery in this matter.
The opposition lacks merit. The court finds good cause to grant Defendant Radix’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.
Notice of ruling by moving party.