Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV04342, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04342    Hearing Date: May 29, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant JCKY Property Investment, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

             On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff Jessica Margarita Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant JCKY Property Investment, LLC (“Defendant”). On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) against Defendant.

DISCUSSION

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject 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 subd. (c)(1)(B).)  A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial.  (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) 

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to the same rules governing demurrers.”  (Hardy v. America’s Best Home Loans (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 795, 802.)  “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice and the [cross-complainant’s] allegations are accepted as true.”  (Id.)  “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought . . .  on the grounds the [cross] complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (Id.)  In the context of a motion for judgment on the pleadings a court “accept[s] as true the [cross-complainant’s] factual allegations and construe[s] them liberally.”  (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1220.)   

Here, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “Motion”) contends that Plaintiff’s FAC fails to plead sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

Initially, the Court notes that the address at which Defendant served the Motion on Plaintiff, who is self-represented, is different than Plaintiff’s address in the Court’s record. Defendant served the Motion on Plaintiff with the Motion by mail at 1211 E. 64th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90044. However, the address Plaintiff has listed on her forms is 1211 W. 64th Street Los Angeles, CA 90044.

Further, the Motion was also served by email. Service by electronic service on self-represented litigants is authorized only with their express consent.  (CCP § 1010.6; California Rule of Court Rule 2.251(a).) There is no notice of Plaintiff’s consent to electronic service on record with the Court and Defendant has not set forth any other evidence that Plaintiff consented to electronic service.

As a result, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

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 29th day of May 2024