Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21STCV02647, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02647    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Sanchez v. Mizban, et al.

CASE NO.:                21STCV02647

MOTION:                  Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

HEARING DATE:   1/8/2025

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.)  

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).) However, this only applies to the statutory basis for the motion. (CCP § 438.) Caselaw after the creation of that statute still recognizes grounds for a common law motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [recognizing that the motion may be made “at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself”]; see also Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.¿(1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145, fn. 2 [non-statutory MJOP upheld despite fact section 438 enacted during course of proceedings];¿Cordova v. 21st Century Ins. Co.¿(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 89, 109 [MSJ treated as a common law motion for judgment on the pleadings]; Tarin v. Lind¿(2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 395 [addressing merits of non-statutory motion].)

ANALYSIS

Defendants Nasser Mizban and Kasra Mizban moves for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. Defendant notes that Plaintiff claims future economic damages. Defendant believes that the expert testimony and other evidence that Plaintiff will present at trial will not meet the “reasonably certain” standard set forth by Civil Code section 1431.2 and CACI 3903A to support that claim. Defendant reasons that since Plaintiff cannot establish any “objectively verifiable” future monetary expenses that Plaintiff is “reasonably certain to need in the future,” Plaintiff should be precluded from seeking any future economic damages at trial. (Mot. at 5.) Essentially, Defendants’ motion is a motion in limine to exclude supporting evidence, especially the testimony of Plaintiff’s retained expert, Neil Ghodardra MD.

Defendant does not show how the negligence cause of action fails to state a claim on the face of the complaint and judicially noticeable documents. Defendants’ motion improperly relies on extrinsic evidence to attack a remedy as opposed to an entire cause of action. The Court therefore cannot grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings against the negligence cause of action.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED.