Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC01499, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01499    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Calitex LLC

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Calitex LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          Unclear – possibly filed on July 15, 2022. [X] Late                       [   ] None

REPLY:                     Filed on July 27, 2022.                                    [X] Late                       [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 2, 2021, Plaintiffs David Prince and Ashley Prince (“Plaintiffs”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Calitex, LLC (“Defendant”) for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the property management company from entering their apartment to make repairs.

On May 10, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer generally denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On June 8, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) and Request for Judicial Notice.

On June 14, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case, regarding case #22STLC02157 – Ashley Prince, et al. v. Calitex, LLC, pending in front of Department 26.

On June 15, 2022, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application to Specially Set the Hearing Date of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative to Continue Trial.  The Court granted Defendant’s Application and advanced the hearing on the Motion to August 3, 2022, at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.  (6-20-22 Minute Order.)

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed “Response Hearing on Pleadings.”  It is unclear whether Plaintiffs filed this document in Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On July 27, 2022, Defendant filed a Reply to the Response indicated above.

II.              Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, filed on February 22, 2021.  Defendant’s request is GRANTED.

III.            Legal Standard

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.)  Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits.  (Id.)  “The motion is confined to the face of the pleading under attack and all facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true.” (Hightower v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 853, 858.)  If the party moving for judgment on the pleadings is the defendant, then the defendant must show that either: “(i) [t]he court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint” or that the “(ii) [t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(B)(i)-(ii).)

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure § 439(a) states that “before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  The moving party “shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration” that either states that a meeting took place or that the non-moving party did not respond to the request.  Although a determination that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings, that does not mean the requirement can be wholly ignored.  (Code. Civ. Proc. § 439(a)(4).

IV.           Discussion

A.    Meet and Confer Requirement

Defense counsel states that on May 12, 2022, prior to filing the instant Motion, she sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs.  (Lewis Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. B.)  Plaintiffs responded to the email, stating “Will beat your incoherent motions in court every day of the week Mark that.”  (Lewis Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. C.)  The Court finds that Defendant has met the requirement to attempt a meet and confer with Plaintiffs.

B.    Merits

In the Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is “unintelligible and fails to state any cause of action.”  (Mot. p. 2.)  Furthermore, injunctive relief is a remedy and cannot be granted absent a cause of action under California law.  (Ibid. at pp. 2, 4.)  Defendant also argues that leave to amend should be denied because there is no reasonable possibility that the Complaint can be cured, and Plaintiffs have failed to show how it can be cured.  (Ibid. at p. 5.)  Given that Defendant provided proper notice of intent to enter Plaintiffs’ home to make the repairs, “[t]here are no facts which could possibly support any cause of action under these circumstances.”  (Ibid.)

On June 20, 2022, the Court advanced the hearing date for the instant Motion and ordered Plaintiffs to file an opposition on or before July 12, 2022, and serve it on defense counsel.  (6-20-22 Minute Order.)  Plaintiffs filed responsive documents on July 15, 2022, and did not file proof of service indicating that the papers were served on the Defendant, thus violating Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(c). In addition, the documents filed by Plaintiffs are ambiguously titled “Response Hearing on the Pleadings”; however, the Court will treat it as an opposition to Defendant’s Motion.  Finally, the language and arguments in this filing are unintelligible and the Court is unable to discern Plaintiffs’ arguments.  Nonetheless, because Defendant has filed a reply, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s purported opposition.

“A preliminary injunction is an interim remedy designed to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits. [Citation.]  It is not, in itself, a cause of action.  Thus, a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted. [Citation.]” (MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 618, 623.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks injunctive relief and does not state any independent cause of action or cause of action under which injunctive relief may be granted as a remedy.  Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

C.    Leave to Amend

After a judgment on the pleadings is granted, the same standards apply in granting leave to amend as for demurrers and leave is routinely granted.  (See CCP §438(h); Virginia G. v. ABC Unified Sch. Dist. (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 1848, 1852 [holding that when a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion if the pleading does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment].)  In case of a demurrer, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318).  When a plaintiff “has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based,” the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not “be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars.”  (Reed v. Norman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.) Accordingly, California law imposes the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the manner in which they can amend their pleadings to state their claims against a defendant.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)

If leave to amend is granted, the party against whom the motion is granted must be given 30 days to file an amended pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(h)(2).)

            Here, Plaintiffs have not shown any reasonable possibility that an amendment to the pleading will cure the defect since no cause of action was stated in the Complaint.  Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted without leave to amend.

V.             Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Calitex LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.