Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 19STCV45806, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 19STCV45806    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of promissory note; (2) breach of oral contract; and (3) conversion.  On February 17, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “Motion”) on the grounds that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and therefore lacks standing to prosecute this action.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The Requests for Judicial Notice filed by Moving Defendants and Plaintiff are GRANTED as to the existence of the documents but not to the truth of the matters stated therein.   (See Scott v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752-54.)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

            The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

            Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 438, subdivision (c)(1)(B), a defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings if the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.  (CCP § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).)  The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer.  (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.)  The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations in the complaint, along with matters subject to judicial notice.  (Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th. 725, 738.)  The court must view the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.  (Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 28.) 

            A statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may not be made if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits.  (CCP § 438, subd. (e).)  A common law motion for judgment on the pleadings is not subject to the same time limitation as its statutory counterpart and, may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.   (See Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)  Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.  (Id.) 

            Although the Motion was not filed within the time limitations set forth under CCP section 438, subdivision (e), the Court exercises its discretion and will analyze the Motion as a common law motion for judgment on the pleadings.  (See Korchemny v. Piterman (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1054-55.)

Plaintiff’s Standing to Sue

A plaintiff lacks standing to sue if, for example, it is not a real party in interest.  (The Rossdale Group, LLC v. Walton (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 936, 945.)  Where a party's  standing to sue defect depends on disputed facts or credibility determinations, the parties are entitled to a jury trial on the issue.   (Stofer v. Shapell Industries, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 176, 190 fn. 5.) 

            Moving Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to establish that Plaintiff is the real party in interest because an entity called “Mal Bien, LLC” is a party to the promissory note (the “Note”), rather than Plaintiff.  (See FAC, Exhibit A.)  The Court is not persuaded by this argument.  First, the FAC alleges two additional causes of action that are not rooted in the Note, and the Notice of Motion does not specify whether Moving Defendants’ arguments extend to the breach of oral contract and conversion claims.  Further, the FAC alleges that Plaintiff was mistakenly referred to as Mal Bien, LLC in the Note.  (FAC ¶ 2.)  Therefore, the FAC does not establish that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue.  The Court accordingly DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

         Dated this 21st day of April 2023