Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC02117, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC02117    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Case Name:                             ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, a Delaware Company v. MACEO GREEN AKA MACEO L. GREEN SR; DOES 1-10 inclusive

Case No.:                                23STLC02117

Motion:                                   Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

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 November 28, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 06, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On April 03, 2023, Plaintiff Enterprise Rent-A-Car Center (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Maceo Green aka Maceo L. Green Sr (“Defendant”) for breach of contract.

On June 07, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On October 06, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. No opposition was filed.

On December 11, 2023, the Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the instant motion to January 24, 2024.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff prays for the Court to grant its motion on the pleadings and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not provide any defenses in his answer to the complaint.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          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 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.)  

II.        Discussion

            A. Meet and Confer Requirement

Before addressing the merits, the Court notes that the Motion is not accompanied by a “meet and confer” declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 439(a). However, the Court may not deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings due to the moving party’s insufficient effort to “meet and confer.” (Code. Civ. Proc. § 439(a)(4).) That does not mean that Plaintiff in this action can wholly ignore the requirement. The purpose of the “meet and confer” requirement is to encourage the parties to resolve their issues without judicial intervention. Failure to meet and confer undermines that purpose and encourages parties to ignore these requirements.

            B. Cause of Action

Plaintiff brings a cause of action for breach of contract between the parties.

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.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that the parties entered into a written rental car agreement on September 19, 2020 (“Agreement), pursuant to which Defendant rented a Nissan Maxima, bearing the license plate number 8NDD926 (“Vehicle 1”). (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9, Ex.1.) The terms and conditions of the Agreement state in relevant part:

9a. Indemnification by Renter: Renter shall defend, indemnify and hold Owner harmless from all losses, liabilities, damages, injuries, claims, demands, costs, attorney fees and other expenses incurred by Owner in any manner from this rental transaction, or from the use of Vehicle or Optional Accessories by any person, including claims of, or liabilities to, third parties. Renter may present a claim to Renter’s insurance carrier for such events or losses; but in any event, Renter shall have final responsibility to Owner for all such losses. This obligation may be limited if Renter purchases optional DW and/or optional SLP.

(Complaint, ¶ 9, Ex. 1 ¶ 9a.) Plaintiff alleges Vehicle 1 was involved in a collision while still under the rental agreement. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that on September 24, 2020, Defendant rearended a parked car owned by a third party (Vehicle 2). (Id. ¶ 12.) Importantly, Plaintiff alleges that it “suffered property damages to VEHICLE 1 in the sum of $7,797.29, plus $420 in incidental damages.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges that it paid its policy limit of $5,000 and then demanded payment of $5,000 from Defendant, but Defendant refused to pay. (Id. ¶¶ 13-15.)

Defendant, in its answer, admits that all statements made in the complaint are true except paragraph 10. (Ans. ¶ 3.) However, in the section of the answer for affirmative defenses, Defendant states:

On September 19, 2020. I rented a Nissan Maxima from Alamo rent a car, which I purchased full coverage insurance through Alamo. The night of the accident, on September 24^th, 2020. I had full coverage insurance at the time of the accident, about an hour later after the accident, Alamo gave me a replacement rental car to drive, because it was included in the full coverage insurance rental agreement.

(Ans. ¶ 4.)

 Plaintiff concedes, in its moving papers, that Defendant did purchase the optional damages waiver, which covered all damages to Plaintiff’s rental vehicle (Vehicle 1).  However, Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not purchase liability insurance or Optional Damage Waiver and/or Supplemental Liability Protection/SLP, which would have covered damages to a third-party vehicle. (Motion p. 6, Jay Smith Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff claims, in its memorandum, that Defendant’s accident resulted in damages to a third-party vehicle in the amount of $7,797.29. And that Plaintiff had to pay $5,000 as a result. (Id.)  But in the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it “suffered property damages to VEHICLE 1 in the sum of $7,797.29.” (Complaint ¶ 13.) Nowhere in the complaint does Plaintiff allege any damage to VEHICLE 2 or what, if anything, Plaintiff paid as a result of that damage.

Plaintiff’s complaint appears to only seek amounts paid as a result of damage to Vehicle 1. (Complaint ¶¶ 13-15.) However, by Plaintiff’s own evidence, Defendant would not be liable for damages sustained to Vehicle 1. Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Defendant paid to receive the optional collision damage waiver. (Complaint Ex. 1.) The Car Rental Terms and Conditions provide in relevant part:

If Renter purchases [an Optional Collision Damage Waiver (DW)], Owner agrees, subject to the actions that invalidate DW listed below, to contractually waive Renter’s responsibility for all or part of the cost of damage to Vehicle or any part or accessory and related costs regardless of fault or negligence up to the amount initialed on the Rental Agreement Summary.

(Complaint Ex 1, ¶ 17.) Here, the Court finds there would be no breach by the Defendant as the terms of the parties’ agreement stipulates that damages sustained to Plaintiff’s vehicle would be covered under the Optional Collision Damage Waiver for which Defendant paid to have. Thus, based on the allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings in so far as Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating breach or damages.

            Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

II.        Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.