Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21BBCV00526, Date: 2022-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00526    Hearing Date: October 7, 2022    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

ALLEGATIONS:

Shawn Kaye and Debra Kaye (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against El Pegasus, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“Defendant”), alleging that Defendant is the owner and landlord of 11643 Chandler Blvd, Los Angeles, California, and Plaintiffs are tenants of Unit 101 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant served a 15-day Pay or Quit Notice and an Unlawful Detainer Notice without also serving a Protections Notice required by Article 14.6 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on June 7, 2021, and a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 1, 2021, which alleges a single cause of action: Violation of Los Angles Municipal Code § 499.99, et seq., Article 14.6. On January 12, 2022, this Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer as to Plaintiff’s FAC, finding that the FAC was sufficiently plead. (01-12-22 Minute Order.)

HISTORY:

The Court received Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on September 2, 2022; the Plaintiffs’ opposition on September 26, 2022; and the Defendant’s reply on September 28, 2022.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant moves for an order granting judgment on the pleadings.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when either “the court has no jurisdiction of the cause of action alleged in the complaint; or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§438(b)(1) & (c)(1)(B).) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) “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. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).) The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as a general demurrer; do the pleadings, including any judicially noticed matters, support that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)

II.        REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court takes judicial notice of the following documents: (1) City of Los Angeles Ordinance 186606 (Defendant’s RJN Exh. 1); (2) the First Amended Complaint on file (Exh. 2); (3) internal exhibits C & D to the FAC, Defendant’s two 15-Day Notices (Exh. 3); and (4) internal exhibit G to the FAC, Plaintiffs’ March 2021 Notice of Violation.

III.        MERITS

Defendant argues that it is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiffs failed to properly send a Notice of Violation to Defendant’s counsel prior to filing this lawsuit. Defendant states that when Defendant’s counsel posted the two separate 15-Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit on the Subject Property, these Notices contained a directive that any communications be directed to Defendant’s counsel, not to Defendant itself; however, Plaintiffs sent their Notice of Violation to the Defendant and its managing member, Marvin Blum. Defendants argue that this is detrimental to Plaintiff’s cause of action.

Defendant cannot be granted judgment on the pleadings on this basis. California Code of Civil Procedure does not permit a defendant to obtain a ruling that the answer or defenses contained therein state facts sufficient to constitute a defense; rather, it requires that the defendant show that the complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (CCP § 438(c).) Here, Defendant does not argue that the FAC does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In fact, this Court has already found that the FAC was sufficiently plead because it alleges that the Defendant failed to serve the Protections Notice as required by Article 14.6, Section 49.99.2(E). (See 01-12-22 Minute Order.)

Defendant cannot obtain a judgment on the pleadings by imposing their own additional conditions on an existing cause of action. Article 46 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code section 49.99.7 states that, “A civil proceeding by a residential tenant under this section shall commence only after the tenant provides written notice to the Owner of the alleged violation, and the Owner is provided 15 days from the receipt of the notice to cure the alleged violation.” Plaintiffs mailed such notice to El Pegasus, LLC at its address of record with the California Secretary of State. Thus, Plaintiffs seemingly complied with Code section 49.99.7 by mailing it to the Owner of the apartment complex. Defendant alleges that their 15-Day Notices expressly required that all communications, including such Notices, be sent to Defendant’s counsel. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Defendant’s express wishes of communication cannot serve to negate their sufficiently plead cause of action.

IV.       CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Defendant does not satisfy its burden to show that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendant.

The Court thus denies the instant motion.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings came on regularly for hearing on October 7, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  October 7, 2022                                _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles