Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV46587, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46587    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 30

Dept. 30 `

Calendar No.

ATM Professional, Inc. vs. Repiping.com Inc., et. al., Case No. 21STCV46587

 

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

 

Defendants Repiping.com Inc. and Henrik Sargystan (collectively, Defendants) move for judgment on the pleadings as to the complaint of Plaintiff ATM Professional, Inc. (Plaintiff). The unopposed motion is granted.

 

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).) A motion by a defendant may be made on the grounds that the complaint or cross-complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(B)(ii).) A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

Like a general demurrer, “ordinarily, a [motion for judgment on the pleadings] does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the [motion] will be overruled.” (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether properly pled factual allegations—assumed to be true and liberally construed—are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Stone Street Capital, LLC v. Cal. State Lottery Com’n (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109, 116.)

 

Defendant Henrik Sargystan (Sargystan) is the sole owner, director, and officer of the “pot shop” Herbal Relief Caregivers, Inc. (HRC), and of the plumbing supply store Repiping.com, Inc. (Comp. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff contracted with HRC to install and operate an ATM at HRC’s store in Sun Valley, California. (Comp. ¶ 4.)

In January 2020, Defendants installed a competing ATM in HRC’s store, using HRC’s cash to stock the competing ATM with money for withdrawal. (Comp. ¶ 5.) Defendants also periodically disconnected Plaintiff’s ATM. (Comp. ¶ 6.) On May 7, 2020, Defendants then permanently disconnected and removed Plaintiff’s ATM. (Comp. ¶ 7.) It is alleged that Defendants diverted and laundered over $1,000,000 of HRC’s cash to Defendant Repiping.com through their competing ATM. (Comp. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff seeks damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees for Fraudulent Transfer against Defendants.

 

Defendants move for judgment on the basis that Plaintiff lacks a right of action for common law fraudulent transfer against them because they are not judgment creditors of Plaintiff. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to state facts to constitute a claim for statutory fraudulent transfer.

 

Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), Civ. Code §§ 3439, et seq., “A transfer of assets made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer, if the debtor made the transfer (1) with an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor, or (2) without receiving reasonably equivalent value in return, and either (a) was engaged in or about to engage in a business or transaction for which the debtor's assets were unreasonably small, or (b) intended to, or reasonably believed, or reasonably should have believed, that he or she would incur debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due.” (Cortez v. Vogt (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 917, 928.) [T]he UFTA is not the exclusive remedy by which fraudulent conveyances and transfers may be attacked. They may also be attacked by . . . a common law action.” (Macedo v. Bosio (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1051.)

A “creditor” is defined by the UFTA as “a person that has a claim, and includes an assignee of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, as defined in Section 493.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of a debtor.” (Civ. Code, § 3439.01, subd. (c).) “ ‘Debtor’ means a person that is liable on a claim.” (Civ. Code, § 3439.01, subd. (e).) The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to allege that it is a creditor of Defendants.

Defendants also move for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to add HRC, an indispensable party.

“A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 389, subd. (a).) 

“If a person as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: (1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; (2) the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate; (4) whether the plaintiff or cross-complainant will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 389, subd. (b).)

The motion is unopposed, and so is granted.