Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01389, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01389    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: C

LBS FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION v. GONZALEZ

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01389

HEARING:  01/18/24

#4

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Defendant MARIA GUADALUPE GONZALEZ’s Answer (filed on June 22, 2023) is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of January 12, 2024.  

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)

This action for breach of contract was filed by Plaintiff LBS FINANICAL CREDIT UNION (“Plaintiff”) on May 5, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about September 16, 2022… GONZALEZ, for valuable consideration, made, executed, and delivered to METRO ACURA a written Retail Installment Sale Contract (‘Contract’) for the purchase of…a 2022 ACURA SH-AWD…. Pursuant to the Contract, GONZALEZ agreed to pay for the Vehicle by making monthly payments for 84 months.” (Complaint ¶6.)  “On or about November 30, 2022… GONZALEZ defaulted in the terms, conditions and covenants of the Contract by failing and refusing to make the monthly payment then due and owing. Because of GONZALEZ’s default in payments, Plaintiff has elected to declare the balance of the Contract immediately due and payable.” (Contract ¶9.)

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Breach of Contract;

(2) Common Count;

(3) Claim and Deliver;

(4) Conversion;

(5) Possession of Personal Property; and

(6) Declaratory Relief.

On June 22, 2023, Defendant MARIA GUADALUPE GONZALEZ (“Gonzalez”) (pro per) filed her Answer to the Complaint.

Plaintiff now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Defendant Gonzalez’s Answer.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, and the rules governing demurrers apply. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146.)

CCP §431.30(b) states: “The answer to a complaint shall contain: (1) the general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant. (2) A statement of any new matter constituting a defense.” (Id.)

Here, Defendant’s Answer fails to either generally or specifically deny any of Plaintiff’s causes of action, and instead attempts to explain that Defendant Gonzalez signed for her son Defendant Solis to obtain the subject vehicle, and that Solis is the one who should be held responsible for payment. As indicated above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gonzalez is the holder of the note.

CCP §430.20(a) states that a demurrer to an Answer is properly sustained where, “[t]he answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.”

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (CCP §438(c)(1)A).)

Defendant did not file an Opposition to this Motion. Therefore, the Court knows of no basis to grant leave to amend.  The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Defendant GONZALEZ’s Answer is GRANTED without leave to amend.