Leave to File Cross-Complaint
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 05/27/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV389381 Dee Sheslter MOTION: LEAVE TO FILE v. Shelly Koning Please control click or scroll down to Line 1 LINE 2 23CV413944 Xiufeng Xie MOTION: SANCTIONS v. Doe, et al - Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Sanctions Doe v. Xiufeng Xie Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 authorizes sanctions for actions or tactics undertaken in bad faith that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Defendant/Cross-Complainant has not made the requisite showing to warrant the imposition of sanctions under the statute.
Although the Court finds that Defendant/Cross-Complainant has now made a sufficient showing supporting protections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3, the Court does not find that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant knowingly violated those protections or otherwise acted in a manner warranting sanctions.
Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall prepare and submit the final proposed order, together with the required EFS-020 forms, within 7 days of the hearing date. LINE 3 24CV430700 Metropolis System MOTION TO INTERVENE & STAY DISCOVERY LLC v. Cryptic Labs LLC Please control click or scroll down to Line 3
Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Dee Shisler v. Shelly Koning Case No.: 21CV389381
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
Factual and Procedural Background
On October 5, 2021, plaintiffs Dee Shisler and Isabel Shisler filed a complaint against defendant Shelly Koning (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for: (1) Elder Financial Abuse (2) Breach of Contract (3) Actual Contract (4) Constructive Fraud (5) Unjust Enrichment – Assumpsit (6) Conversion (7) Intentional Misrepresentation (8) Negligent Misrepresentation (9) Negligence (10) Quiet Title. Plaintiff Isabel Shisler passed away in 2022 and Dee Shisler (“Plaintiffs”) continued the action as Isabel’s successor-in-interest. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant must return money they lent to her when she was married to Dee and Isabel Shisler’s son, Bryan Shisler.1
Currently before the court is Defendant’s motion for leave to file cross-complaint against thirdparty Bryan Shisler. Defendant filed written opposition.
Legal Standard
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A party may file a cross-complaint without leave before a trial date is set. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (b); City of Hanford v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 580, 587.) Where leave is required, the decision rests within the Court’s discretion. (Orient Handel v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701.) Undue delay, particularly where the facts were known or reasonably should have been known earlier, is a proper basis for denial. (People ex rel. Dep’t of Public Works v. Los Angeles (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 558, 568.)
Analysis
A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint may file a crosscomplaint against another person alleged to be liable if the cause of action asserted in the cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the cause of action in the original complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10, subd. (b).) A party can file a cross-complaint against parties other than the plaintiff without leave of court at any time before the court has set a date for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (b); City of Hanford v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 580, 587.)
1 In their 2021 Complaint, Plaintiffs also asserted claims against Defendant regarding a property in San Jose, CA where Plaintiffs previously resided. In her Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint, Defendant alleges that proposed Cross-Defendant also bears liability for loans but does not address Plaintiffs’ claims regarding real property. Plaintiffs’ Opposition papers do not mention Plaintiffs’ claims about real property and consequently the court will not address the relevance of those claims to the cross-complaint matter at issue here.
Defendant contends the delay in seeking to file the cross-complaint was due to Plaintiffs’ shifting litigation posture, prior related actions, and substitutions of counsel. Defendant further asserts she proceeded once it became clear current counsel was actively prosecuting the matter.
The Court is not persuaded. The factual basis for the proposed cross-complaint—arising from the underlying family and financial relationships at issue in this case—was known or readily ascertainable at the inception of the action in 2021. Defendant filed her Answer years ago, yet did not seek leave to assert claims against Bryan Shisler until December 2025. In the intervening period, the parties have engaged in discovery and multiple case management conferences, with the case now pending for more than four years.
Defendant has not provided a satisfactory justification for the extensive delay in seeking leave. Uncertainty regarding Plaintiffs’ litigation decisions does not excuse failure to timely assert known claims.
Further, this action is now approaching the five-year mandatory dismissal period under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. Allowing the late filing of a new cross-complaint at this stage would expand the scope of the litigation and create a substantial risk of further delay inconsistent with the statutory mandate for timely disposition.
On balance, the delay, lack of justification, and prejudice to orderly case management warrant denial.
The motion for leave to file cross-complaint is DENIED.
The Court will prepare the order.
- oo0oo -