California Affordable Housing Association vs. Volk Investments, LLC

In light of the Appeal, the court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause set for 8/3/26, for possible resetting after the conclusion of the appeal.

Defendant to give notice.

7 California Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint Affordable Housing Association vs. Volk The court DENIES Defendant VOLK INVESTMENTS, LLC’s Investments, LLC Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint.

The proposed Cross-Complaint seeks indemnity claims against an individual who is not currently a party to this action, ALEX AKSELROD. Section 428.50 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the filing of a cross-complaint against a non-party “at any time before the court has set a date for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(b), emphasis supplied.)

Here, as explained below, trial was set long ago and Defendant’s explanation is lacking for Defendant’s extensive delay in seeking leave now to file a cross- complaint.

This action was filed on 10/11/23 (i.e., years ago) and trial is currently set for 8/3/26 (i.e., about a month away). The action has been at-issue for years and trial has been continued numerous times at Defendant’s requests. Defendant filed an answer on 7/26/24. On 10/28/24, the court set the original trial for 12/15/25. After Defendant failed to comply with discovery obligations and pursuant to Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions, the court issued evidentiary sanctions on 5/2/25 against Defendant (while denying Plaintiff’s request for evidentiary sanctions). The court also heard, but denied, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication of issues on 10/10/25.

Thereafter, on 11/25/25, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and ex parte application filed by Defendant, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by 12/1/25, ordered Defendant to file an Answer to the new pleading within 30 days, continued the trial date from 12/15/25 to 3/9/26, and extended trial-

related dates. (11/25/25 Minute Order.) Defendant now contends that its stipulation was based on an undisclosed stipulation to the court that Defendant would be granted leave to file a cross-complaint.

Such contradicts the ex parte application. (See Def’s Ex Parte Appl., filed 11/24/25, p. 2, lines 1-12 [stating what the stipulation and requests were based upon].) Notably, the court continued the trial date as requested by Defendant – i.e., “to a date after March 1, 2026”. (Id., at p. 3, lines 6-9 and Exh. A [Stipulation].) Thereafter, and after Plaintiff filed trial documents, Defendant filed another ex parte requesting a trial continuance. Defendant’s ex parte was not based on any contemplated cross-complaint. Rather, it was based on defense counsel being engaged in another action in another county that is facing a 5 year statute. In response, the court continued the trial from 3/9/26 to 8/3/26. (See 3/2/26 Minute Order.)

Only thereafter, on 4/9/26, did Defendant file the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.

The court further notes that despite the court ordering Defendant to file an answer within 30 days of 11/25/25, Defendant did not file the answer until months later, on 2/17/26, and only after Plaintiff gave notice that it would seek entry of default due to Defendant’s failure to timely file an answer.

It does not appear that Defendant has acted in good faith.

The motion is DENIED.

The 1-day bench trial remains set for 8/3/26.

Plaintiff to give notice.

8 Preciado vs. Acosta Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

The court GRANTS Plaintiffs CHRISTIAN PRECIADO, ROXY MENDEZ, and ROSALY VAZQUEZ’s (through her Guardian

9