DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24STCV33924·la·Civil·Sexual Assault/Personal Injury
Hearing todayGRANTED

Jane DB Doe v. Dr. Mitra Razipour Chiropractic Group, Inc. dba Natures Remedy Clinic

Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
617
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJane DB Doe
DefendantDr. Mitra Razipour Chiropractic Group, Inc. dba Natures Remedy Clinic

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 617) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT 617 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

617 Date: 8-26-26 Case #: 24STCV33924 Trial Date: 1-25-27 LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Dr. Mitra Razipour Chiropractic Group, Inc. dba Natures Remedy Clinic RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Jane DB Doe RELIEF REQUESTED Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiff Jane DB Doe sued Defendant Dr. Mitra Razipour Chiropractic Group, Inc. dba Natures Remedy Clinic alleging she was sexually assaulted by a provider Defendant assigned to her. Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) Sexual Assault; (2) Gender Violence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Sexual Harassment; (5) Negligence; (6) Negligent Supervision; (7) Negligent Hiring/Retention; and (8) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate.

RULING: Granted. Defendant moves for leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnification against Hernan Bonilla, claiming that he is the alleged perpetrator of the assault on Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Defendant's motion is granted. Defendant is granted leave to file the cross-complaint.

A defendant can cross-complain against a codefendant or a third party not yet a party to the action 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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 428.10, subd. (b).)

The indemnification claim arises out of the same alleged assault for which Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible. Defendant's motion is therefore granted. Defendant to separately file the cross-complaint within 10 days of this order.

Defendant to give notice. | Home -->)" -->

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