Kevin Michael Johnson v. Wedgewood Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.

TENTATIVE RULINGS Kevin Michael Johnson v. Wedgewood Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer

Hearing Date: May 15, 2026

**NOTE: If no party contests the Court’s tentative rulings, the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) specially set for May 15, 2026, will be CONTINUED to August 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 14 for further CMC and trial setting.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULINGS

Each of these tentative rulings becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND EACH TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE RELATED HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

The unopposed motion of Defendants Wedgewood Hospitality Group, Inc., Z Golf Food & Beverage Services, LLC, and Wedgwood Beverage, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for an order seeking leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint is GRANTED.

Legal Standards.

Compulsory cross-complaints are causes of action that the defendant must file against the plaintiff when serving the answer; failing to do so prevents them from bringing these claims in future cases. [Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30, subd. (a).] They include causes of action that “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” [Id. at subd. (c).] To avoid piecemeal litigation, courts interpret the term “transaction” broadly, understanding it as “not confined to a single, isolated act or occurrence. . . but may embrace a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated.” [Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (internal quotes and citations omitted).]

A cross-complaint against any party who filed the original complaint must be filed either before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint. [Code Civ. Proc. § 428.50, subd. (a).] This answer must be filed within 30 days after service of the complaint. [Code Civ. Proc. § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).] Parties seeking to file untimely compulsory cross-complaints may request permission from the court to do so, even if the delay was caused by oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other reasons. [Code Civ. Proc. § 426.50.] In such cases, after providing notice to the opposing party, the court must grant leave if the party acted in good faith. [Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.]

Background and Discussion.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff Kevin Michael Johnson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was on premises that “Defendants owned, maintained, and/or managed” when he “fell due to the dangerous condition of [an] unlit staircase with no handrails.” [Complaint at pp. 4-5.] Defendants argue that they did not learn, until six weeks after filing the Answer, that Plaintiff’s contract with Defendants included a release and hold-harmless agreement. [Stoll Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 4 (sic), 5.] Consequently, Defendants now seek this Court’s permission to file their Cross-Complaint to assert claims that Plaintiff released and held Defendants harmless from all claims related to his alleged injuries. [See Proposed Cross-Complaint, Exh. B to Stoll Decl. at ¶ 6.]

The motion is unopposed, and the moving papers show that Defendants acted in good faith. Accordingly, the Court will not preclude the proposed compulsory cross-complaint, which would otherwise be forfeited. The motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling and are directed to file and serve the proposed Cross- Complaint within 10 days from May 15, 2026.

The May 15, 2026, Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to August 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. If the case is at issue by then, the Court will likely set it for trial.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer

The unopposed motion of Defendants Wedgewood Hospitality Group, Inc., Z Golf Food & Beverage Services, LLC, and Wedgwood Beverage, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for an order seeking leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED.

Legal Standards.

The court may, at its discretion, after notice to the opposing party, allow an amendment to any pleading on any just terms. [Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1).] The court’s discretion is usually exercised liberally to permit amendments. [Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.] “If the motion to amend is timely made and granting it will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission; and, if the refusal prevents a party from asserting a meritorious cause of action or defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” [Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.]

The motion must include a copy of the proposed pleading and specify what allegations are to be deleted or added. It must be supported by a declaration that details: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts prompting the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) why the request for amendment was not made earlier. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324, subd. (b).]

Background and Discussion.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff Kevin Michael Johnson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was on premises that “Defendants owned, maintained, and/or managed” when he “fell due to the dangerous condition of [an] unlit staircase with no handrails.” [Complaint at pp. 4-5.] Defendants argue that they did not learn, until six weeks after filing the Answer, that Plaintiff’s contract with Defendants included a release and hold-harmless agreement. [Stoll Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 4 (sic), 5.]

Defendants have met the requirements of Rule 3.1324. A copy of the Proposed First Amended Answer accompanied Defendants’ motion. [Exh. B to Stoll Decl.] The amendment allows Defendants to assert a statute-of-limitations defense for an incident that may have actually occurred on November 20, 2023. [Id. at ¶ 9; Stoll Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6.] Defendants did not discover until their counsel received a copy of the contract between the parties on February 2, 2026, that the scheduled event may have occurred on a date different from the one alleged in the Complaint. [Stoll Decl. at ¶ 5.] Defendants brought this motion “immediately after receiving information supporting a potential statute of limitations defense and roughly 2 months after the original answer was filed.” [Id. at ¶ 6.] Further, no trial date has been set.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling and are directed to file and serve their First Amended Answer within 10 days from May 15, 2026.

The May 15, 2026, Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to August 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. If the case is at issue by then, the Court will likely set it for trial.

2