Explains how a co-defendant with indemnity cross-claims can oppose a moving defendant's MSJ in California elder abuse cases even when plaintiff does not, and how to coordinate to use the co-defendant's expert attack when it benefits plaintiff.

The Indemnity-Ally Play in Multi-Defendant California Elder Abuse MSJ

When plaintiff does not oppose a co-defendant's MSJ — because the case against that defendant has weakened, or because opposition resources are concentrated elsewhere — a non-moving co-defendant with cross-claims for indemnity has standing to oppose. The indemnity interest is adverse to the moving defendant's success: if the MSJ is granted, the cross-claimant loses a contribution target. That adverse interest can produce an expert attack plaintiff did not pursue.

The defense move. Defense in a multi-defendant elder abuse case assumes that if plaintiff does not oppose the motion, the motion succeeds. That assumption misses the indemnity dynamic. A skilled nursing facility and a management company, or a facility and a staffing agency, or two entities in the same corporate chain may have cross-claims against each other. When one moves for summary judgment, the other — as a cross-defendant on the indemnification claim — has standing to oppose the motion on the ground that granting it eliminates a contribution target.

What the rulings show. In a 2026 Los Angeles County Superior Court MSJ ruling (No. 24VECV02670, 5/13/26), a co-defendant opposed the moving defendant's MSJ on indemnity grounds and successfully struck the moving defendant's expert declaration on Garibay grounds — an attack plaintiff had apparently not pursued. The Garibay exclusion came from the adverse co-defendant, not from plaintiff. With the expert declaration struck, the moving defendant could not carry its initial burden, and the MSJ was denied. The expert battle in the case was won not by plaintiff's affirmative opposition but by the indemnity co-defendant's adverse interest in defeating the motion.

Your best move. Two considerations in multi-defendant cases.

Before deciding not to oppose a co-defendant's MSJ, identify whether any remaining co-defendant has an adverse indemnity interest. If a management company moved for summary judgment and the licensed operator is a co-defendant on the management company's cross-claims, the operator may oppose — and may bring expert attacks plaintiff chose not to pursue. Plaintiff's decision about whether to oppose does not determine whether the motion is opposed. Understand the indemnity landscape before making that decision.
When the indemnity-ally play is in motion, coordinate. If a co-defendant with adverse indemnity interests is opposing the motion, plaintiff can often benefit from the expert attack without leading it. The co-defendant's Garibay objection, if sustained, eliminates defense's expert evidence for everyone. Plaintiff's opposition, if any, can rest on the substantive record while the procedural expert attack is carried by the indemnity co-defendant. The coordination needs to happen before opposition is due — know who is filing what, when, and on what grounds.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. All frameworks and sample language should be reviewed by a licensed attorney and adapted to your particular client, case, and situation.