Salas vs. Capsule Manufacturing, Inc.

3 Salas vs. Solmer Law Group’s (“Solmer”) unopposed motion to be relieved as Capsule counsel for plaintiff Jennifer Salas (“Plaintiff”) is DENIED without Manufacturing, prejudice. Inc. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d), a motion to be relieved as counsel must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. Solmer has not filed a proof of service with the court at least five court days prior to the hearing. (Rule 3.1300(c).) As there is no evidence Plaintiff and the three defendants have been served, the motion is denied without prejudice to re-filing, properly serving all parties, and timely filing notice of service.

Solmer to give notice of the ruling. 4 Creditors O/C Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Societal CDMO, Inc. 5 Rancho Pacific Before the Court is a motion by defendants Hiccups Barista Inc. and Retail Partners Sky Hoang (Defendants) for leave to file an amended answer and a LLC v. Hiccups cross-complaint. As set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. Barista Inc. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, the “court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code of Civ.

Proc. § 473, subd. (a), § 576.) 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,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Husley v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159 [policy of liberality is particularly true for amendments to answers].) Here, the Court finds the motion for leave to amend substantially complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, and no prejudice has been shown. (Declaration of William T.

Carlsen ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. B.) The motion for leave to file an amended answer is therefore GRANTED.

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 which the plaintiff alleges in the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).) A party acting in good faith may apply to the court for leave to file a cross- complaint, at any time during the course of the action. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 426.50.) Leave to file compulsory cross-complaint is mandatory absent bad faith. (