Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00363, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00363    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

ALLEGATIONS: 

On June 23, 2022, Bank of America, NA (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for damages against Danell D. Johnson (“Defendant”). The complaint contains a single cause of action for common counts. Plaintiff seeks damages for money lent in the amount of $25,125.84.   

On June 27, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint, submitting general denials to all allegations. After Defendant failed to respond to Request for Admissions (“RFA”), Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem RFA matters admitted, which was granted by court order on February 10, 2023.

Plaintiff now moves for judgment on the pleadings.

HISTORY:

On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendant has submitted no opposition.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears 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.)  Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits.  (Id.)  “The motion is confined to the face of the pleading under attack and all facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true.” (Hightower v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 853, 858.) 

A plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.”  (C.C.P. § 438(c)(1)(A).) 

II.              JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the Court’s February 10, 2023 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFA matters admitted. Plaintiff also requests the Court take notice of Plaintiff’s RFA and Plaintiff’s Proof of Service for its RFA.

Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322; Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549 (holding that the court may take judicial notice of matters that cannot be reasonably controverted, including "admissions and concessions.").)

Pursuant to Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.44th 71, 83, when ruling on a demurrer (or, by logical extension, a motion for judgment on the pleadings), the Court can take judicial notice of a party's discovery responses that directly contradict the allegations of the complaint; this is true so long as the party whose responses are being relied upon has personal knowledge of the facts asserted therein.

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)

III.            MEET & CONFER

Code of Civil Procedure § 439(a) states that “before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  The moving party “shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration” that either states that a meeting took place or that the non-moving party did not respond to the request.  Although a determination that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings, that does not mean the requirement can be wholly ignored.  (C.C.P. § 439(a)(4).) 

Upon review of the record the Court is satisfied the meet and confer requirements have been met. (Karayan Decl. ¶ 3.)

IV.            MERITS

The required elements of a common count claim are “(1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment. A cause of action for money had and received is stated if it is alleged the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.” (Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460, citation and quotation marks omitted.)

The RFA matters deemed admitted against Defendant contradict any denial in his Answer.  Specifically, the Defendant admits the following statements: 

1)     Danell D. Johnson had opened an account with Plaintiff, account number (redacted) 2760.

2)     Danell D. Johnson received a document from Plaintiff that set forth the terms of account number (redacted) 2760.

3)     Danell D. Johnson made purchases and payments on Bank of America, N.A. account number (redacted) 2760.

4)     Danell D. Johnson failed to make the required payments on Bank of America, N.A. account number (redacted) 2760.

5)     Danell D. Johnson last made a payment on Bank of America, N.A. account number (redacted) 2760 on June 21, 2021.

6)     Danell D. Johnson owes Plaintiff the principal sum of $25,125.84 on account number (redacted) 2760.

7)     That Plaintiff provided Danell D. Johnson with billing statements for the sums owed on account number (redacted) 2760.

8)     That at the time Danell D. Johnson received the billing statements on account number (redacted) 2760, Danell D. Johnson did not object regarding any amount reflected on those billing statements.

9)     That the agreement Danell D. Johnson entered with Plaintiff provided for the payment of court costs in the event of suit.

10) That Danell D. Johnson has no defense to this action.

Plaintiff argues it is entitled to a Motion for Judgment on the pleadings because Defendant has been deemed to have admitted all material facts supporting Plaintiff’s complaint.  Upon review of the admissions, the Court finds they speak to each element of a common count claim. As such, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

--- 

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 

Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings came on regularly for hearing on April 14, 2023, 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 FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 14, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles