Defendant LHA Framing’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint
6/04/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 6 of 18
2:00 PM LINE: 3 24-CIV-01978 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SMPIW, INC. DBA SAN MATEO PRECISION IRON WORK, ET AL
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY SALLY NOMA SMPIW, INC. DBA SAN MATEO PRECISION IRON WORK ASIT PANWALA
DEFENDANT LHA FRAMING’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, Defendant/Cross-Complainant LHA Framing’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Initially, the Court notes that this matter was reassigned to the Honorable Mark A. McCannon, Department 2, effective December 1, 2025. Therefore, the notice incorrectly states that the hearing is in Department 11. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1) [the notice “must specify” the location of the hearing].)
Defendant’s motion is 117 pages in length, including three exhibits. Defendant is further reminded that exhibits must be properly bookmarked. Specifically, “electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4); see also San Mateo County Superior Court, L.R. 3.3 [“Failure to bookmark exhibits to electronically filed documents may result in rejection of the party’s e-filing by the Clerk of the Court or in continuance of the hearing by the Court on the related motion.”].)
This is an insurance subrogation action arising out of a fire that occurred at a construction site where defendants were working, on or around May 1, 2021. The project involved a residence owned by Plaintiff State Farm’s insured, who held a homeowner’s policy under which Plaintiff paid damages. Plaintiff seeks subrogation from all defendants based on their alleged negligence in allowing the fire to start.
Defendant LHA Framing filed a cross-complaint alleging that it was not negligent, but that cross-defendants J. Building and Eanovation, Inc. were negligent. The cross-complaint further alleges that LHA Framing performed contractually agreed-upon framing services for Eanovation in the amount of $70,366, but Eanovation breached the agreement by failing to pay.
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?”
The instant motion requests leave to:
• add individual Hao Jin and cross-defendant Eanovation to the first cause of action for breach of contract; • add new allegations to that cause of action regarding defendants’ failure to pay for legal services; • add a new cause of action for intentional misrepresentation against Hao Jin and Eanovation; and • separate the causes of action for equitable apportionment and indemnity, and declaratory relief.
6/04/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 7 of 18
Cross-Defendant Eanovation has not appeared in this action, and the record indicates that the motion was served at the same address the Court previously found insufficient at the September 18, 2025 hearing. In the Court’s September 18, 2025 minute order, the Court noted that Cross-Defendant Eanovation had not appeared and that the record indicated the motion was served at a San Francisco apartment address different from the address where the original cross-complaint was served. The Court’s ruling stated: “Any renewed motion must also include a declaration establishing the basis for service at the new address and detailing the efforts made to confirm that it is Eanovation’s current or last-known address.”
In the instant motion, as required by the Court’s earlier order, counsel for LHA includes a declaration establishing the basis for service and detailing the efforts she made to confirm that the address used is Eanovation’s current or last-known address. (Declaration of Suleiman B. Oladeinde, ¶¶ 9-15, MPA pp. 20-21.) The declaration states that service was made on Eanovation at its office address listed on the Statement of Information on the California Secretary of State website: 42514 Albrae Street, Fremont, CA 94538. (Oladeinde Decl., ¶ 9; see also Ex. 3.)
The proof of service attached to the motion, however, demonstrates that service was made by U.S. Mail at the identical San Francisco apartment address that the Court found insufficient in its September 18, 2025 ruling. (See MPA p. 117.) An additional proof of service filed on May 21, 2026, demonstrates that service of the instant motion was made at another San Francisco address, despite the Oladeinde Declaration stating that 42514 Albrae Street, Fremont, CA 94538 is the only address listed for Eanovation. (Oladeinde Decl., ¶ 9.) The Court cannot verify service, and the fact that Eanovation has neither appeared nor responded to this motion further supports the conclusion that service was not properly made. Accordingly, the motion is once again DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant LHA Framing shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.