Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21BBCV00882, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00882    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,

 

                   Plaintiff,

         v.

 

KATERINA GALIN,  

 

                   Defendant.

 

Case No.: 21BBCV00882

 

  Hearing Date:  December 9, 2022

 

 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

 

 

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 (as a self-represented litigant) filed an answer.  On May 10, 2022, Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney showing that she is now represented by counsel.

B.    Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On August 12, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion for judgment on the pleadings to Defendant’s answer without prejudice.  The Court found that Plaintiff had not provided the Court with the RFA responses it sought judicial notice of and that it had not shown that each of Defendant’s 31 affirmative defenses lacked sufficient facts to constitute a defense.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the second 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.  This is the motion that is currently before the Court.  Plaintiff argues that the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and that the RFAs that have been deemed admitted show that Defendant cannot state sufficient facts to constitute a defense.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

         Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Exhibits: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for an order that the matters in the RFAs be admitted and (2) the Court’s order granting the motion on April 18, 2022.  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. 

         The complaint alleges one cause of action for common counts, wherein Plaintiff alleges that Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff within the last 4 years on an open book account for money lent by Plaintiff to Defendant.  (Compl. at p.3.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to pay $29,769.90 to Plaintiff.  (Id.) 

         The following facts have been deemed admitted by Defendant:

·      Defendant had a credit account number ending in -4525 issued by Plaintiff.

·      Defendant received periodic statements regarding the account.

·      As of October 5, 2021 (filing date of the complaint), the balance owed by Defendant on the account was $29,769.

·      No payments have been made on the account since October 5, 2021.

·      The last payment on the account was made within 3 years immediately prior to October 5, 2021.

(RJN Ex. 1 [RFAs], Ex. 2 [Court’s Order granting motion to deem RFAs admitted].)  The RFA responses show that Plaintiff has established its cause of action for common counts. 

         Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s 31 affirmative defenses each fail.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s defense nos. 1-6, 12-13, 15-17, 19, 22-23, 25-26, and 28-29 attack the facts of the case.  However, Plaintiff argues that these affirmative defenses fail because the relevant, material facts to the case have already been deemed admitted by Defendant.  As stated above, Plaintiff has established the elements of its cause of action as the RFAs have been deemed admitted, such that affirmative defenses that Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts, uncertainty, etc. fail.  Similarly, Defendant’s defenses regarding laches or statute of limitations also fail as Defendant has already admitted that payment was not made within 3 years of the filing date of the complaint.  (See CCP § 337(b) [4 years for a common counts claim].) 

         Further, Plaintiff points out that defense nos. 7-8, 10-11, 14, 20-21, and 24 do not apply to a common counts cause of action as these defenses are directed to tort/negligence claims.  For example, the 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th affirmative defenses are regarding assumption of risk. active/affirmative negligence, failure to exercise ordinary care, and Plaintiff’s sole negligence.  The 9th affirmative defense for “intentional acts” also fails for the same reasons.

         Plaintiff argues that the remaining affirmative defenses fail.  The 18th affirmative defense for indemnity is not necessarily a defense, but rather a cross-claim.  The 27th and 30th affirmative defenses for concealment and fraud allege that Plaintiff engaged in fraudulent conduct, but the allegations of the defenses fail to allege any specific facts with particularity to support fraud.  Finally, the 31st affirmative defense of “additional defenses” is merely a placeholder and does not allege a separate defense.

         For these reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.  The Court notes that the motion is unopposed and, thus, Defendant has not shown how she can amend the answer. As such, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.