TROY REESE ET AL VS. MARTHA ALVAREZ ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC23605112 - August 5, 2026 Hearing date: August 5, 2026 Case number: CGC23605112 Case title: TROY REESE ET AL VS. MARTHA ALVAREZ ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23605112 | Case Title: | | TROY REESE ET AL VS. MARTHA ALVAREZ ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-08-05 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File Cross Complaint With Exhibit In Support | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 5, 2026. Line 1.

PART 1. DEFENDANT MARTHA ALVAREZ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File Cross Complaint With Exhibit In Support is DENIED without prejudice to the extent Defendant seeks leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint; motion is denied with prejudice to the extent leave to file a permissive cross-complaint is sought.

This motion does not comply with CRC 3.1110 and 3.1112. Moving party chose to combine the Notice of Motion and Motion in one document as allowed by CRC 3.1112(c). The first paragraph of the body of this document appears to be the Notice of Motion (starting with "Please Take Notice..." and the Second paragraph appears to be the motion (starting with "this motion is made...). The Notice section of this document does not comply with CRC 3.1110(a) in that it does not state the nature of the leave to amend sought (compulsory or permissive) or the grounds for such relief.

The motion is accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice, which attaches an incomplete document (purporting to be a true and correct copy of a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate) ending in mid-sentence "abuse of discretion is established if the". There is no signature of counsel, let alone verification of this purported Verified Petition attached to the Request for Judicial Notice.

Compulsory cross-complaints are defined in sections CCP 426.30 (a) and CCP 426.10 (c). The operative complaint seeks rental damages November 1, 2020 to May 31, 2022. Defendant answered the operative complaint on July 21, 2023. The compulsory claims are only those that the defendant has as of that date and those that arose out of "transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions," in this case the alleged failure to pay rent/tenancy.

Additionally, the proposed cross-complaint appears to assert claims that have been determined (see paragraph 22) or are related (see paragraph 54), to determination(s) of the Rent Board which should only be challenged by a writ of after exhaustion of administrative remedies. It appears from the moving party's papers that there were at least two rent board petitions filed since August 2021 by the tenant. Paragraph 22 of the proposed cross-complaint states that Ms. Alvarez filed a tenant Petition in March 2022 "for a reduction in her rent on the grounds that the various habitability defects at the Property and Unit B constituted a decrease in housing services."