Since 2012, Steven Ruth has been representing clients in a dispute arising out of one client’s employment at and efforts to purchase a restaurant. Three of these clients were brought in as cross-defendants on the eve of the original trial date. One of these clients successfully moved to quash service of summons, but the other two remained as parties to the action. Cross-complainant asserted that they were liable as parties to  alter egos of, investors in, or partners or joint venturers with the corporate cross-defendant.

We moved for summary judgment on behalf of the two remaining late-added cross-defendants. We also moved for summary adjudication on the claim for declaratory relief as to the other cross-defendants on the grounds that cross-complainant sought relief for an existing breach, not to obtain prospective relief.

The Court recently granted our motion in its entirety.  The Court found that

• There was no evidence that the late-added parties were parties to the subject agreements.
• There was no evidence that the late-added parties owned or controlled the corporate cross-defendant.
• There was no evidence of a partnership or joint venture.
• Cross-complainant sought relief for an existing breach, not to obtain prospective relief.

The Court’s order leaves cross-complainant with claims only for breach of contract and an accounting against the two remaining cross-defendants.