Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV03389, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03389    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff Helena Titus filed this action against Defendants Patricia Eure, Joseph Eure, Che’Kel Management Company, LLC, and Molloy Real Estate Services. The complaint stems from alleged uninhabitable conditions.

            On March 11, 2024, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint.

            On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings against Defendants’ answer. Defendants filed their opposition on June 2, 2025. Plaintiff filed her reply on June 3, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made on the same grounds as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1999) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) Judgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution. (Schabarum v. Calif. Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ answer pleads ultimate facts sufficient to inform Plaintiff of the nature of the affirmative defenses. Any remaining ambiguities may be resolved in discovery. (See Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) A pleading

need not be a “model of clarity” to survive demurrer. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) 

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.