Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19SCMV00201, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SCMV00201    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Herrera v. Sterling

CASE NO.:                19SCMV00201

MOTION:                  Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

HEARING DATE:   10/12/2022

SUMMARY OF RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant’s First Amended Answer  (FAA) is DENIED.

Legal Standard

A defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. (CCP § 438(f).) A motion by a defendant may be made on the grounds that (1) the court “lacks jurisdiction of the subject of one or more of the causes of action alleged” or (2) the complaint or cross-complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (CCP § 438(c).)

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings is akin to a general demurrer; it tests the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action. The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations in the complaint, along with matters subject to judicial notice.” (Wise v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738, citations omitted.) Further, like a general demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings “does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the [motion] will be overruled.” (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)

TIMELINESS

A statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may not be made past 30 days of the date the action was initially set for trial, unless otherwise provided by the Court. (CCP § 438(e).) Here, the trial was initially set for trial on October 26, 2020. Thus, this motion should have been made by November 26, 2020. Moreover, in February 2020, Defendant filed the operative FAA. Plaintiff had sufficient time to challenge the FAA, but chose, without justification, to file this motion. Relying solely on a statutory basis, Plaintiff filed the instant motion in August 2022.  Thus, the motion is untimely and DENIED.