Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV05513, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05513    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

            Plaintiff Mae Moore originally filed this case on February 9, 2021.  Trial commenced in late 2021, but there was a mistrial when Moore died during the trial.  Plaintiffs Joy Moore, Kathryn Pratt, and Carol Farquharson filed a second amended complaint alleging wrongful death on January 7, 2022, followed by a third amended complaint on February 18, 2022.  The current trial date is March 20, 2023. 

            On February 21, 2023, twenty-seven days before the current trial, Defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438 on the causes of action for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.  That section requires a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be made within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial “unless the court otherwise permits.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (e).)  After Plaintiffs filed the wrongful death complaint, the case was set for trial on October 10, 2022, and then on November 14, 2022, and now on March 20, 2023.  Thus this motion was filed much too late.  It was not even filed within 30 days of the current trial date.

            The court has not given permission for this late motion.  Each of the four complaints in this action alleged causes of action for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.  Defendant could have filed a motion for summary adjudication before the first trial in 2021.  Defendant could have filed a motion for summary adjudication after Plaintiffs file the wrongful death complaint in January 2022.  Defendant has not shown good cause for not filing a motion for summary adjudication.  If the court gave permission for this very late motion for judgment on the pleadings, other defendants in these coordinated proceedings would be encouraged to file similar motions at the last minute.  That would make managing trial preparation and the trial schedule very difficult because, if the court granted such motions, the court would likely need to allow amendment of the pleadings, which would require continuing trial dates.  Thus, Defendants desiring trial continuances would be incentivized to file last-minute motions for judgment on the pleadings.

            In the context of these coordinated proceedings, the most efficient and effective way for a defendant to challenge this type of fraud causes of actions is by filing a motion for summary adjudication.  That allows both parties to present evidence, usually does not require a trial continuance, and does not result in multiple rounds of amended pleadings.  Also, in non-preference cases, that motion can be decided far enough before trial that the parties know the scope of the pleadings and the issues remaining for trial before filing trial documents.

            The motion is DENIED.

            The moving party is to give notice.