Chrisman vs. Norm Reeves Inc

Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is not properly made by way of this demurrer. The request is DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s requests for judicial notice.

Defendant is ORDERED to prepare and submit proposed judgment of dismissal.

Defendant to give notice.

103 Beasley vs. Soheil, 2024-01411587 Motions to be Relieved as Counsel – GRANTED

Samuel Ogbogu (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiffs Rodney Nelson and Pamela Freeman.

The motions are unopposed and Moving Attorney has stated a basis for permissive withdrawal under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. All other requirements have been satisfied.

Thus, the motions are GRANTED.

The order relieving counsel will be effective upon counsel filing proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).)

Moving Attorney to give notice. 104 Chrisman vs. Norm Reeves Inc, 2025- 01532240 Motion for Leave to File a Cross-complaint – GRANTED Defendant Wuerer Family Partnership (“Defendant”) moves for an order granting it leave to file a crosscomplaint against Norm Reeves, Inc. and Coastal Auto Sales, Inc., dba Norm Reeves Honda Superstore Huntington Beach. No opposition has been filed. Defendant’s proposed cross-complaint includes causes of action for express and implied indemnity, declaratory relief and apportionment of fault. Defendant owns the subject property underlying plaintiff’s action and leases the property to the proposed cross-defendants. The

proposed cross-complaint alleges that the proposed cross-defendants have a contractual duty to maintain the subject property pursuant to the lease between the parties. Defendant argues that the cross-complaint will allow a complete determination of this controversy in one action and permit a fair trial of the issues. Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10(b) provides that a defendant may file a cross-complaint if the cause of action asserted: “(1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.”

If such a cross-complaint is not filed at the same time as the defendant’s answer or before the court sets the first trial date, leave to file is required. (Id. § 428.50(a)-(b).) Leave to file may be granted “in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Id. § 428.50(c).) The proposed cross-complaint would not add any new parties to the action and granting leave to amend would not pose any prejudice to any party. Thus, the unopposed Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.