DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV082581·alameda·Civil·Indemnity and Contribution
Hearing todayThe Court is currently inclined to deny the application.

SANCHEZ vs CITY OF FREMONT, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, et al.

Ex Parte Application for Leave to File/Serve Cross Complaint for Indemnity and Contribution

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
19
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffSanchez
DefendantCity of Fremont
DefendantChao Yun Wu

Ruling

24CV082581: SANCHEZ vs CITY OF FREMONT, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Leave to File/Serve Cross Complaint for Indemnity and Contribution in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 08/21/2026 Joscelyn Jones

On Defendant Chao Yun Wu’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to File/Serve Cross-Complaint for Indemnity and Contribution, PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR (by Zoom, if they prefer.)

The Court is currently inclined to deny the application. However, the parties may appear to address the following issues.

Wu should be prepared to address what prejudice he will suffer if he is not permitted to serve his Cross-Complaint on the City of Fremont now, only two weeks before trial. Wu should also address why, if he contends the indemnity claim in the Cross-Complaint is a necessary part of this case, he did not serve any discovery related to his Cross-Complaint, or take any action (for example, request entry of the City’s default on the Cross-Complaint) when the City failed to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the Cross-Complaint within the two years after it was filed.

The City should be prepared to address what prejudice it would suffer if the Court were to allow service of the Cross-Complaint at this time. More specifically, the City should address what issue(s) is raised in Wu’s Cross-Complaint that has not already been the subject of discovery and actively litigated in this case.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share