YIONIS HERNANDEZ vs CHARLES JOSEPH SCHEBLER, et al.

2025CUBC052475: YIONIS HERNANDEZ vs CHARLES JOSEPH SCHEBLER, et al. 05/26/2026 in Department 21 Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Tentative Rulings. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.)

The following is a statement of the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

Motion: Motion by Defendant Schebler Construction, Inc. (“Defendant”) for leave to file cross-complaint.

Tentative Ruling: The Court is aware of the Clerk’s office’s rejections of the attempts to file the proposed cross-complaint. Defendant is directed to file and serve a supplemental declaration in support of this motion, with the proposed cross-complaint attached. The Court will continue the hearing to 6/22/26 at 8:30 a.m.

Defendant is to give notice within two (2) court days.

Analysis

As noted at the prior hearing, the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory because it is asserted against Plaintiff. Defendant has shown that it did not timely file the cross-complaint with the answer due to oversight, inadvertence, mistake, or neglect.

Defendant is also adding a new party. Defendant must serve the summons and cross-complaint upon the new party as required by CCP section 428.60.

However, due to a defect in the proposed cross-complaint filed with the motion, the Court continued the hearing and directed Defendant to file a corrected proposed cross-complaint. Defendant’s two timely attempts to file this document were rejected by the Clerk’s office, likely due to a misunderstanding as to whether this filing was an attempt to file a pleading without first obtaining leave.

To avoid confusion, Defendant is directed to file and serve a supplemental declaration in support of this motion, with the proposed cross-complaint attached as an exhibit.