LISA CHINI, et al. vs VISTA CAMARILLO OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, et al.

2025CUNP049300: LISA CHINI, et al. vs VISTA CAMARILLO OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, 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 Vista Camarillo Owners Association (“Defendant”) for leave to file cross-complaint (opposed).

Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is GRANTED. The cross-complaint is to be filed within 10 days of the date of this ruling.

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

Background: This is an action for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims by Plaintiffs Ray and Lisa Chini (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Defendants Vista Camarillo Owners Association (“Defendant”), Terri Malenke, Paula Ross aka Paula McCreary, and George Gomes da Costa (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs are owners of property and members of Defendant’s HOA.

On August 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the complaint, asserting causes of action for (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Violation of Civil Code § 5975, (2) Harassment, and (3) Declaratory Relief.

On October 17, 2025, Defendants filed an answer. On April 27, 2026, Defendant filed this motion.

A court trial is set for February 1, 2027.

Discussion: Defendant is correct that the proposed cross-complaint is compulsory because it is asserted against Plaintiff Ray Chini. Defendant has shown that it did not timely file the cross-complaint with the answer due to oversight, inadvertence, mistake, or neglect. Plaintiff’s