Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01050, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01050    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      April 18, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         HEADWAY CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v. LUKE BOSSENDORFER, an individual dba ELECTRIC 70, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01050

MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Headway Capital, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed November 16, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Headway Capital, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant breached a written guarantee for a loan and owes an outstanding balance of $31,853.43. Plaintiff filed this complaint on November 10, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff provides that the motion is proper because in Defendant’s answer, filed on December 23, 2022, Defendant checked the box that provides that “Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint or cross-complaint are true EXCEPT:” but failed to state any allegations that he contends are false.

A plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds “that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 438.) The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. section 438(d).)¿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).)

            Defendant has admitted to each allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into a written guarantee for a loan. (Complaint ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the agreement by failing to make payments. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff alleges that it performed all its obligations. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that it has been damaged in the sum of $31,853.43. (Id. ¶ 11.) The face of Defendant’s answer demonstrates that Defendant has failed to allege any defense or facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   April 18, 2024                                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court