HOWARD HONG VS. HIPCAMP, A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24616887 - September 4, 2026 Hearing date: September 4, 2026 Case number: CGC24616887 Case title: HOWARD HONG VS. HIPCAMP, A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24616887 | Case Title: | | HOWARD HONG VS. HIPCAMP, A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-04 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Leave To File Cross-Complaint | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for September 4, 2026, line 2. DEFENDANTS HIPCAMP INC., CARRIE MAXWELl'S Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint.

Defendants Hipcamp Inc. and Carrie Maxwell's (collectively Hipcamp) motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against third party Theresa Hong, wife of plaintiff Howard Hong, is denied. This cross-complaint is permissive rather than compulsory, as Hipcamp concedes. "Permission to file a permissive cross-complaint is solely within the trial court's discretion." (Crocker Nat. Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)

In Crocker, the court considered whether there was delay and the proximity to the trial date. (Id.) Here, Hipcamp has not set forth plainly when it learned facts giving rise to its claims that Theresa Hong is obliged to indemnify or insure it for Howard Hong's claims, or that Theresa Hong was negligent. It seems likely that Hipcamp has known since the outset of this case that Theresa Hong, and not Howard Hong, booked the property where the injury occurred. The parties acknowledge that the contract containing indemnity provisions was an exhibit to the deposition of Hipcamp's general counsel that occurred 10 months ago. Thus, Hipcamp has not satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay.

The proximity to the trial date also weighs against granting relief. Trial is currently set for December 7, 2026, about three months away. In Crocker, a trial date five months out weighed in favor of denying relief. (Crocker, supra, at p. 864.) It seems unlikely that the case could be brought to trial on the current schedule if Theresa Hong, who has not yet appeared in the action, were added as a party. Weighing in favor of relief is the policy in favor of preventing multiple actions and trying related cases together. In view of all the facts, the court concludes that this policy does not outweigh the reasons to deny relief.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |