Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Young v. Guniel Corporation, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULINGS:
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants Gunlei Corporation, Egreen Transport Corporation, Hong Chen, Jing Song, Yu Wang, Wen Chen, and Elaine Huang’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
CCP § 438 provides in relevant part:
(c)(1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds:
…
(B) If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist:
(i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
(ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.
(2) The motion provided for in this section may be made as to either of the following:
(A) The entire complaint or cross-complaint or as to any of the causes of action stated therein.
…
(3) If the court on its own motion grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings, it shall be on one of the following bases:
(A) If the motion is granted in favor of the plaintiff, it shall be based on the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.
(B) If the motion is granted in favor of the defendant, that either of the following conditions exist:
(i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
(ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.
(d) The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit.
…
(i)(2) All motions made pursuant to this subdivision shall be made pursuant to Section 1010.
CCP § 1010 states, “Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.” (Emphasis added).
Based upon the foregoing statutory requirements, the notice of motion should state whether judgment on the pleadings is sought as to the entire Complaint or some particular portion thereof, the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, including requests for judicial notice, upon which it is to be based.
Here, the Notice is woefully deficient as it lacks all of the above. See, ROA 299 and 303. Moreover, it is unclear from the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities whether moving defendants seek judgment on the pleadings as to the entire complaint, or only as to the causes of action for breach of contract and interference with prospective advantage. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine the relief requested, as none have been stated in the Notice. The motion is DENIED.
Lastly, although not grounds to deny the instant motion, the Court notes that Defendants have failed to file a meet and confer declaration to establish sufficient meet and confer prior to filing the motion. The same meet and confer process required for filing a demurrer or a motion to strike must be followed before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings under CCP § 438. (CCP § 439).
Moving Parties to give notice.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs William Young and Jennifer Young’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 6/1/22 order is DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) A court may not reconsider any order unless a motion for reconsideration complies with the requirements of section 1008. (Id., § 1008, subd. (e).)
As an initial matter, on 6/6/22, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application seeking the same relief. The ex parte was set for hearing on 6/14/22. That ex parte was opposed and the Court ruled on this matter on 6/13/22. On 6/13/22, the Court denied the ex parte. See, ROA 266. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
In addition, this instant motion fails to demonstrate new or different facts, circumstances or law than those before the court at the time of the ruling on the demurrer. First, the JBY issue and whether Defendants had demonstrated a sufficient basis for ex parte relief were already raised by Plaintiffs in their opposition to the ex parte that was heard on 6/1/22. Second, Defendants’ failure to timely demurrer to the FAC was known to Plaintiffs before they opposed the ex parte. Third, Plaintiffs also knew at the time of the opposition and 6/1/22 ex parte that Egreen was not the purported party to the contracts. Lastly, with regard to whether Gunlei’s business status in Virginia is inactive, it is unclear whether this was known to Plaintiff at the time of the original ruling and the supporting declaration fails to elaborate.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Moving Parties to give notice.