Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV28238, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28238    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Ritz Flooring, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff Gilberto Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Burbon 1420, LLC (“Burbon 1420”), Burbon, LLC (“Burbon”) and Alltime Maintenance, Inc. (“Alltime”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Ritz Flooring, Inc. (“Ritz”).

On January 8, 2021, Burbon 1420 filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Alltime and Ritz for equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. On March 10, 2021, Ritz filed an answer. On April 1, 2021, Alltime filed an answer. 

On February 19, 2021, Ritz filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 20 for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. 

On April 5, 2021, Alltime filed an answer. On April 1, 2021, Alltime filed a Cross-Complaint against Ritz for equitable indemnity, partial equitable indemnity, contribution and equitable apportionment and declaratory relief. On April 29, 2021, Ritz filed an answer. 

On February 2, 2023, Ritz filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to be heard on March 21, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for April 10, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Ritz requests the Court grant judgment on the pleadings as there are no material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution.

LEGAL STANDARD

‘‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and [thus] attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]’  [Citation.]’  [Citation.]”  (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274.)  “In reviewing the motion, [the Court] deem[s] true all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and we may also consider judicially noticed matters.  [Citation.]”  (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.)

According to CCP §439, parties are required to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. “...The moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims. The party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is not subject to judgment, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any claims it is subject to judgment.” CCP §439(b).

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants negligently maintained the subject premises, resulting in Plaintiff stepping on a nail or staple and injuring himself.

On October 25, 2022, Ritz propounded Request for Admissions, Set Two, on Plaintiff; Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery request. On January 31, 2023, the Court deemed all requests as admitted. Some of the admissions deemed admitted included 1) the subject incident did not occur as a result of a dangerous condition; 2) Plaintiff has no evidence to support the contention that incident was caused by Ritz; 3) Plaintiff has no evidence that Ritz was on notice as to the subject condition; 4) the subject incident occurred as a result of Plaintiff’s sole negligence; 5) Plaintiff has no evidence to support his contention Ritz was negligent or cause the incident.

As such, there is no basis to bring a negligence or premises liability claim against Ritz. Plaintiff has admitted that there was no breach of duty or causation, both of which are essential to a cause of action for negligence or premises liability. The Court grants the motion, without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Ritz Flooring, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.