Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC00942, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC00942    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, April 11, 2024

Case Name:                             AMBER LORRAINE REYES v. ADRIANA NATALE WEBER

Case No.:                                23STLC00942

Motion:                                   Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party:                         Defendant Adriana Natale Weber

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant Adriana Natale Weber’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.   

Within 10 days, Counsel for Defendant is ordered to electronically submit to the Court a Proposed Judgment consistent with Part I.B.1 of the Court’s February 29, 2024, Minute Order.

The 08/05/2024 Trial date is advanced and vacated.

SERVICE: 

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

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

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 28, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 04, 2024                      [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff Amber Lorraine Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Adriana Natale Weber (“Defendant”) for defamation.

Defendant filed her Answer to the Complaint on March 08, 2023.

On December 26, 2023, Defendant filed and served the instant unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings and asserts that Plaintiff’s complaint for defamation fails to state a claim against Defendant. According to the proof of service, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was served on Plaintiff—who is representing herself in pro per—by electronic service. The Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the instant motion to April 11, 2024, to allow Defendant to serve the instant motion through authorized means and file proper proof of service of the Motion and notice of the continued hearing date.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Defendant contends that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for defamation, fails to allege a defamatory statement, and fails to identify to whom a defamatory statement was made. Additionally, Defendant asserts that the complaint is vague and conclusory. Defendant requests that the motion be granted without leave to amend.  

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

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

When the moving party is a defendant, he or she must demonstrate that either of the following conditions exist: (i) that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint; or (ii) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).)  

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.)  

II.        Discussion

            A. Meet and Confer Requirement

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, Defendant provides the declaration of her counsel who states that prior to filing the instant motion, counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff via email and by phone on December 18, 2023, to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint. Counsel later declares that as of the February 29th hearing date, Plaintiff failed to respond to counsel’s emails or return his calls. (Tye G. Trostad Decl. ¶ 3.) Counsel additionally states that on March 08, 2024, counsel wrote Plaintiff a detailed meet and confer letter, inviting her to contact counsel to discuss both the Complaint and the instant motion. (Id. ¶ 5; Exh. A.) Counsel made further attempts to meet and confer on March 11 and March 12, 2024, but to no avail. (Id. ¶ 6.) Counsel swears that, “As of the date of this Declaration, I have not received a return call to my voice mails, nor have I received a reply to my March 12, 2024, email…Moreover, none of my emails to Plaintiff have been ‘bounced back’ as not being delivered.” (Id. ¶ 8.) Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s declaration satisfies the meet and confer requirement under 439(a). Thus, the Court moves on to the merits.

            B. Cause of Action – Defamation

            In its prior order, the Court found that the Complaint did not state a cause of action for defamation. (See. 02/29/24 Minute Order.)  However, the Court found that while it was inclined to grant the instant motion, service had not been properly rendered on the Plaintiff as prescribed under CCP § 1010.6 and ordered the Defendant to effectuate proper service of the motion and notice of continuance. (Id.)

            Here, the Court notes that since the Court’s order, Defendant has filed proof of service indicating that the motion was served on Plaintiff by mail on March 08, 2024. (03/12/24 Proof of Service by Mail.) Defendant additionally provides the Court with proof of service, attached to Defendant’s Notice of Continuance, indicating that Plaintiff was served by mail with notice of continuance on the same day service was rendered for the instant motion. (03/12/24 Notice of Continuance of MJOP.) Therefore, the Court finds that the service requirements under CCP § 1010.6 have been satisfied and GRANTS Defendant Weber’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

II.        Conclusion

            Defendant Adriana Natale Weber’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Within 10-days, Counsel for Defendant is ordered to electronically submit a proposed form of Judgment consistent with Part I.B.1 of the Court’s February 29, 2024, Minute Order.

The August 5, 2024 Trial date is advanced and vacated.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.