Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV13519, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13519    Hearing Date: May 21, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. 

On 10/3/2023, Plaintiff 26 Star, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against the Estate of Reynaldo Perez Ortiz (Estate or Defendant), alleging: (1) breach of contract, and (2) intentional interference with prospective economic relations. Reynaldo Perez Ortiz (Decedent) died testate on November 29, 2020. On 3/1/2021, Virginia Perez Arreola (Executor) filed a petition for probate of Decedent’s will under case no. 21STPB01852 (the Probate Matter) and was appointed the Executor of the Estate on 11/10/2022.

On 4/22/2025, Defendant moved for a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and the continuing violation doctrine does not apply.

            However, by Defendant’s own admission, Defendant raised identical arguments in a 2/9/2024 filed demurrer, which the Court overruled on 3/29/2024. The standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that applicable to a general demurrer. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064; Dudley v. Department of Transportation (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 255, 260.)

            Strangely, despite this acknowledgement, Defendant’s motion includes no facts or analysis to distinguish this motion from a motion for reconsideration.  (See Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577 “…regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration…”)

            Here, the demurrer in question was overruled over a year ago, and Defendant filed an answer on 4/5/2024. Now, Defendant seeks reconsideration of the determination that the allegations are sufficient at the pleadings stage, without any explanation as to how or why the Court would reach a different result here. “When [a party] fails to raise a point or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citation to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; See also Cox v. Bonni (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 287, 378, noting that “[a] trial court may not grant a party's motion for reconsideration that does not comply with section 1008.”)

            Defendant’s motion amounts to a request for reconsideration of a ruling issued over a year ago. To the extent that a different result could be reached here on the pleadings, Defendant has not submitted any argument or citation to authority to show this.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is denied. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.