Motion for Leave (re Cross Complaint)
4 CA-MRE Holdings, Motion for Leave (re Third Amended Complaint) LLC vs. Sierra Creek, LLC No Tentative. The parties should however be prepared at the hearing to discuss the procedural history of this action, including the following:
Over the last five+ years, Plaintiff has amended the complaint numerous times and trial has been continued numerous times. Specifically, Plaintiff CA-MRE HOLDINGS, LLC filed this action on 4/27/21. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 9/1/21 and shortly thereafter, the original trial was scheduled for 9/12/22. After the court sustained a demurrer with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on 3/14/22. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application (and due to a cross- complaint filed on 4/26/22), trial was continued to 3/10/23.
Pursuant to stipulations, trial was thereafter continued to 3/11/24, and then to 10/14/24, and then to 7/7/25, and then to 12/8/25, and then to 4/20/26. When continuing the trial from 12/8/25 to 4/20/26, the court stated, “No further continuances”. (ROA 202.) Nonetheless, the court continued the trial yet again, to 8/31/26 based upon the stipulation of the parties and the court’s congested calendar. (ROA 248.)
Trial is currently set for 8/31/26, the discovery deadline is quickly approaching, and Defendants have stipulated to continue the 5-year rule to 10/27/26.
Now with trial quickly approaching (again) and despite that the action is more than five years old, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that would among other things, “add[] a direct breach of contract claim by CA-MRE against Sierra Creek, LLC for breach of a 2018 Assignment agreement (attached to the proposed TAC as Exhibit C); add[] an accounting claim; and revise[] the fraud claims.” (Not. of Mot, at p. 2, lines 8-16.)
5 Stern vs. Motion for Leave (re Cross Complaint) Comdirect, Inc. The court GRANTS Defendants COMDIRECT, INC., ZACHARY LINDEN, and BLAKE BENJAMIN’S unopposed motion for
leave to file a proposed cross-complaint against Plaintiff DIANE STERN and THE LAWRENCE AND DIANE STERN FAMILY TRUST.
According to the moving papers: Defendants timely prepared a cross-complaint but the attempted filing on 3/3/26 was rejected by the Clerk’s Office because of a defect in the pleading caption. Defendants later corrected the caption defect but the resubmittal on 3/18/26 was again rejected by the Clerk’s Office, as the Cross-Complaint was not filed with Defendant’s Answer on 3/3/26.
The proposed cross-complaint appears to be compulsory and there is no apparent basis to find that Defendants have not acted in good faith to file the proposed Cross- Complaint.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Moving Parties SHALL separately file the proposed Cross- Complaint within 5 days and immediately serve the Cross- Complaint pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Trial (3-5 day jury) remains set for 11/15/27.
Moving Parties to give notice.
6 Real vs. Dhillon Motion to Quash Service of Summons Carrier, Inc. The court GRANTS Specially Appearing Defendant DHILLON CARRIER, INC’s (“Dhillon Carrier”) unopposed motion to quash service of summons.
Dhillon Carrier moves for an order quashing the service of the summons and complaint that was purportedly effectuated via substitute service on 10/14/25 and/or 12/15/25. (See Proofs of Service, filed 10/16/25 [ROA 10] and 12/22/25 [ROA 16].)
When a defendant challenges jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove “the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1440. See also, Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160 [“It was incumbent upon plaintiff, after the
15