Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23NWLC09416, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23NWLC09416, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Name: IFE GROUP D/B/A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT DESIGN GROUP v. VICTORIA ALLEN and JEFF ALLEN

Motion: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Defendants Victoria Allen and Jeff Allen

Moving Party: Plaintiff IFE Group dba Southern California Restaurant Design Group

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff IFE Group’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

On April 06, 2023, IFE Group dba Southern California Restaurant Design Group (“Plaintiff”), filed two causes of action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Victoria Allen (“Victoria”)[1], and Jeff Allen (“Jeff”) (collectively “Defendants”).

Defendants, in propria persona, separately filed an Answer to the Complaint on May 17, 2023.

On November 09, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Request for Admissions as to both Defendants as Admitted. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on January 12, 2024.

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production from both Defendants. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and ordered Defendants to pay sanctions in the amount of $838.00.

On January 19, 2024, the Court determined that the matter was not a “collection hub case as defined by California Rules of Court, rule 3.740(a)” and ordered the matter transferred to Department 1 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for reassignment.

On January 24, 2024, the Court reassigned the matter to Limited Civil Non-Collections Hub to Commissioner Latrice A.G. Byrdsong in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

On February 01, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Plaintiff prays for an order from the Court to grant its motion for judgment on the pleadings and enter judgment in the amount of $6,658.99 against the Defendants pursuant to CCP § 438(b)(1). Plaintiff asserts that based on the deemed admittances, Defendants’ answers entirely fail under CCP §§ 438(c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(B) as Defendants admit that they owed the amounts prayed for in Plaintiff’s April 06, 2023, Complaint and they have no defense thereto.

Plaintiff’s requests for the Court to take judicial notice of the Court’s January 12, 2024, Minute Order, the Court’s March 19, 2024, Minute Order, CCP § 2033.280, and Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-05 are DENIED because Plaintiff’s requests do not comply with CRC rule 3.1113(l) requirement for judicial notice requests to be made in a separate document. Here Plaintiff’s requests are improperly attached to Plaintiff’s instant motion. Thus, the requests are denied under CRC rule 3.1113(l).

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 may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

When the moving party is a plaintiff, he or she must demonstrate that the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and that the answer does not state sufficient facts to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).)

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on February 01, 2024. Since the amended motion has been served on the Defendants, the Court will proceed to address the motion based on Plaintiff’s amended moving papers filed on February 01, 2024.

Before addressing the merits, the Court notes that the Motion is accompanied by a “meet and confer” declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 439(a). Here, Plaintiff provides the declaration of its counsel who states that the Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s “meet and confer” efforts or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. (02/01/24 Declaration of Demurring Party Regarding Meet and Confer.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s declaration satisfies the meet and confer requirement under 439(a) and thus proceeds to the merits of the instant motion.

Plaintiff brings two causes of action for 1) breach of contract and 2) common counts.

To state a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

If a breach of contract claim “is based on alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) In some circumstances, a plaintiff may also “plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.” (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.)

“The essential allegations of a common count ‘are (1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment’” (Allen v. Powell (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 502, 510.)

As to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on or about February 25, 2019, a written agreement was made between Plaintiff and Defendants for design services of a food service facility. (Compl. p. 3 BC-1; Exh. A.) On or about August 13, 2019, Defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay $2,500.00. (Id. BC-2.) The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff has performed all obligations to the Defendants except those for the obligation Plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing. (Id. BC-3.) As a result, Plaintiff alleges it has suffered $2,500.00, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of ten percent per annum per Civil Code section 3289(b) in damages legally and/or proximately caused by the Defendants’ breach of agreement. (Id. BC-4.)

The Complaint further alleges that Defendants became indebted to Plaintiff within the last four years on an open book account for money due because an account was stated in writing by and between the parties in which it was agreed that Defendants would be indebted to Plaintiff. (Id. CC-1(a).) The Complaint also alleges that Defendants became indebted for work, labor, services, and materials rendered at the special instance and request of the Defendants and for which Defendants promised to pay Plaintiff $2,500.00. (Id. CC-1(b).) The $2,500.00, which the Complaint alleges as the reasonable value of Plaintiff’s services, is due and unpaid despite Plaintiff’s demand, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of ten (10) percent per year. (Id. CC-2.)

In both Defendants’ Answers, Defendants deny each allegation contained in both Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action. (Ans. p. 2) Defendants’ Answers specifically allege that the parties did enter into an agreement on or about January 25, 2019. (Id. p. 2 ¶ 1; Exh. A.) Defendants hired Plaintiff to design and develop a computerized aided design (“CAD”) for their commercial kitchen located in the city of Torrance. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendants paid Plaintiff a deposit of $2,500.00 to develop and design a commercial kitchen. (Id. ¶ 3.) Per page 2 paragraph 3 of the agreement “If Dealer is required to dimension the existing space as separate fee will be charged for this service and can be quoted if needed.” (Id.; Exh A.) The Answers further allege that Defendants explained to Plaintiff that their services were needed to measure the room for the design and development of the commercial kitchen and that Plaintiff did not perform any work. (Id. ¶ 3.) Defendants contacted Plaintiff several times by phone and Plaintiff did not reply or do any work pursuant to the agreement.

Plaintiff argues it has met its burden and that, based on Defendants’ answers, judgment on the pleadings should be granted. Specifically, based on responses to requests numbers 6 through 9, Defendants have admitted that they owe the amounts prayed for in Plaintiff’s April 06, 2023, Complaint. Moreover, under the one final judgment rule, the monetary sanctions owed should be merged into the final judgment entered against both Defendants.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument unpersuasive and improper as it seeks a determination of evidentiary issues. “In ruling on a demurrer, a court may consider facts of which it has taken judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30, subd. (a).) This includes the existence of a document. When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (See Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 660.)

Although the Court denies the judicial notice requests on separate grounds, here, the Defendants’ answers clearly contradict the judicially noticed admissions deemed admitted. “[A] court ruling on a demurrer cannot decide a question that may depend on disputed facts by means of judicial notice.” (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 115, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 621.) Indeed, the Richtek court found that the trial court erred by using judicially noticed documents to draw conclusions that were contradictory to the express allegations in the operative pleadings. (See Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 660-661.) Therefore, notwithstanding the Court’s decision to decline taking judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs as Admitted, and the Court’s order deeming Plaintiff’s RFAs as admitted, they are still disputed by Defendants’ answers, and cannot form the basis for the Court’s granting Plaintiff’s Motion.

The function of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, similar to a demurrer, is to test the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. (Id. at 660.) A hearing on a demurrer, and thus motion for judgment on the pleadings, may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of documents whose truthfulness or proper interpretation may be disputable. (Id.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts. (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff has not carried its burden under CCP § 438(c)(1)(A). Both Defendants’ Answers provide an affirmative defense indicating that Plaintiff did not perform under the parties’ agreement and that they are still expecting performance on the parties’ agreement. Thus, under the state of the pleadings, since the Defendants do have a defense to the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Trial in tis action is reset for OCTOBER 7, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Discovery and all other trial related deadlines are to comport with the new trial date.

Parties must comply with the trial requirements as set forth in the court's Third Amended Standing Order for Limited Civil Cases (effective February 24, 2020).

All trial documents are to be electronically filed at least ten (10) days prior to the trial date.

Parties should be prepared to submit a JOINT Trial Readiness Binder / Exhibit Binder, and to personally appear on the date of trial.

[1] The Court uses the Defendants first names to differentiate their actions as both Defendants go by the surname Allen. The Court in no way means any disrespect to the parties but on the contrary holds all parties with the highest respect.