Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV17927, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17927    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendant Chang Soo Pak’s Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as to all causes of action without leave to amend.

Defendant to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

A party may move for a judgment on the pleadings as to an entire complaint or as to a particular cause of action in a complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438 subd. (c)(2)(A).) If a defendant moves for a judgment on the pleadings and argues that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant, then the court should grant a defendant’s motion only if the court finds as a matter of law that the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action. (See id., § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii); see also Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677.)

“The standard for granting 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.) When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court not only should assume that all facts alleged in the SAC are true but also should give those alleged facts a liberal construction. (See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515–516, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 12 P.3d 720.) In particular, the court should liberally construe the alleged facts “‘with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.’ [Citation.]” (See Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1232, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 900 P.2d 601.)

Defendant Chang Soo Pak moves for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiff Sim Kwon Kim, based on this court’s prior order granting Defendant’s motion to deem matters admitted against Plaintiff. Among the matters deemed admitted against Plaintiff are: that Defendant never solicited a loan from Plaintiff; that Defendant did not loan Plaintiff $200,000; and that there are no facts or documents to support Plaintiff’s causes of action. (Motion Exhs. 2, 3.) “A matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission, unless the court has permitted amendment or withdrawal of the admission.” (Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1272.) Judicial notice may be taken of the admissions and this court’s order that they are deemed admitted against Plaintiff. (See Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c) [official judicial acts].)

Judgment on the pleadings is proper here. Defendant has secured admissions against Plaintiff that Defendant accepted no loan from Plaintiff and made no promise to guaranty repayment, and that there are no facts supporting Plaintiff’s causes of action against him. These admissions are conclusively established against Plaintiff, and fundamentally undercut his claims, founded upon Defendant’s alleged oral promises and guarantees and fraudulent misrepresentations. (Complaint ¶¶ 10–13.) Plaintiff has filed no opposition.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to all causes of action without leave to amend.