Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2022-00003944-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 30, 2023

09/01/2023  10:00:00 AM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00003944-CU-BC-NC 29475 VISTA VALLEY DRIVE LLC VS NAGA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/11/2023

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought by defendants Karun and Haritha Naga (collectively, the Nagas) is DENIED.

The Court declines to rule on the formal Objections to Evidence submitted by plaintiff 29475 Vista Valley Drive LLC (Plaintiff). The first eight exhibits appear to be to argument rather than to evidence. To the extent that the Nagas (or just Haritha Naga) have signed the arguing papers (papers which are not well-formatted and which violate a number of procedural formatting requirements), the Court declines to consider the statements made therein as evidence. Functionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings operates very much like a demurrer in that the scope of the facts largely rests on what is alleged in the pleadings – with that caveat that certain, limited, judicially-noticeable evidence can be considered. As the Court does not review a motion for judgment on the pleadings as an evidentiary motion, specific objections about the foundation or authentication of the information being provided in the motion are immaterial to the legal question being posed by the motion, which is whether the facts stated in the pleadings give rise to a cause of action. To the extent that the moving papers include additional exhibits, the Court similarly disregards additional evidence provided in this manner unless it was provided or attached to the appropriate pleading. To the extent that Plaintiff objects to an exhibit containing legal codes – namely, Objection 10 pertaining to Exhibit 5 which simply states Civil Code § 3295 – the objection of relevance is misplace because that objection is not being applied to evidence.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009918