Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV00630, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV00630 Hearing Date: April 15, 2025 Dept: O
Case Name: Sigmund v. Rodriguez
| Case No.: | 23SMCV00630 | Complaint Filed: | 2-14-23 |
| Hearing Date: | 4-15-25 | Discovery C/O: | N/A |
| Calendar No.: | 4 | Discovery Motion C/O: | N/A |
| POS: | OK | Trial Date: | None |
SUBJECT: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Steven Lee Rodriguez
RESP. PARTY: No opposition or amended complaint has been filed
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Steven Lee Rodriguez’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff is to file and serve an amended complaint within 10 days.
On 10/29/2024 Defendant filed and served the motion for judgment on the pleadings set for hearing on 3/6/2025. At the hearing on 3/6/2025 Wendy McNabb appeared as counsel for Plaintiff and represented that a substitution of attorney had been filed and that an opposition to the motion submitted on 3/5/25 had been rejected by the clerk.
Plaintiff still has not filed a substitution of attorney for Plaintiff’s new counsel. Nor has Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, or a proposed first amended complaint, both of which were apparently served on the defendant, and addressed in Defendant’s Reply filed on 4/8/2025.
The Complaint does not include any facts to properly allege the causes of action for Breach of Contract and Fraud. The Court cannot conclude the multiple defects within the Complaint cannot be cured by amendment due to the lack of an opposition. Thus, the Court finds that the Complaint does fail to allege facts to state the claims, however, Plaintiff will be allowed leave to amend to cure those defects and add the necessary facts. (See Wagner v. Benson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 27, 32–33 [“If the complaint could be amended to state a cause of action, leave should be granted to allow plaintiff to do so”]; see also Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176 [“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend ‘ “if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.]
Defendant’s RJN is GRANTED as to the existence of articles, court documents, and the administrative ruling documents, but not to the “truth of the hearsay statements in the documents.” (In re Vicks (2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 314.)