Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21BBCV00882, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00882    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Katerina Galin (“Defendant”) on October 5, 2021, alleging a single cause of action for common counts.  Plaintiff alleges that within the last 4 years, Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff on an open book account in the amount of $29,769.90. 

On November 10, 2021, Defendant (a self-represented litigant) filed an answer. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings per the complaint for the amount set forth in the complaint, plus costs in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Exhibit A, which includes the Court’s April 18, 2022 order that matters in the Requests for Admission (“RFA”) be deemed true.  The request is granted.  (Evid. Code, § 452(d).) 

LEGAL STANDARD

            CCP § 438(c)(1)(A) states:

(c)(1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds:

(A) If the moving party is a plaintiff, 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.

(CCP § 438(c)(1)(A).) 

            “An MJOP is equivalent to a demurrer and is governed by the same standard of review.”  (Pang v. Beverly Hosp., Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989.)  “In addition to the facts pleaded, we may consider matters that may be judicially noticed, including a party's admissions or concessions which can not reasonably be controverted.”  (Id. at 989–990.) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings on the complaint, arguing that the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and that Defendant does not state sufficient facts to constitute a defense because the matters in the RFA are now deemed admitted. 

            While the Court takes judicial notice of its April 18, 2022 order as requested by Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the RFA requests that were deemed admitted for the Court’s judicial notice and review.  Further, while Plaintiff may arguably be able to establish the sufficiency of its complaint, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant’s answer lacks sufficient facts to constitute a defense.  Defendant alleged 31 affirmative defenses, but Plaintiff has not addressed the affirmative defenses in the answer as a part of Plaintiff’s burden in moving for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff’s arguments are likely better raised in a summary judgment motion.

            Thus, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.