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.)