Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC08708, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08708    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 26

Financial Partners Credit Union v. Hilaire, et al.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Code Civ. Proc., § 438; Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Jerry Hilaire is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendant Jerry Hilarie (“Defendant”) on December 9, 2021. Defendant filed an Answer on January 10, 2022 and an Amended Answer on February 17, 2022. 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions against Defendant on April 13, 2022. On June 6, 2022, the Court granted the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions against Defendant. (Minute Order, 06/06/22.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant on October 20, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438 on the grounds “that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) 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.)

Upon Plaintiff’s request, the Court takes judicial notice of (1) Defendant’s Answer filed on January 10, 2022; (2) Defendant’s Amended Answer filed on February 17, 2022; (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted filed on April 13, 2022; and (4) the Court’s order of June 6, 2022 deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted. The Court takes judicial notice of these documents pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549) [holding that the court may take judicial notice of matters that cannot be reasonably controverted, including “admissions and concessions.”].)

While a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438, et seq. must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, there is no such requirement for a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to the common law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439 [moving party must file 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].) The Motion here is supported by a meet and confer declaration. (Motion, Elder, Jr. Decl., ¶7 and Exh. 1.)

The Motion first points out that Defendant’s Amended Answer does not deny any of the allegations in the Complaint. (Amended Answer, filed 02/17/22, ¶¶3-5.) Second, the admissions in the Request for Admissions admit all the material facts alleged in the Complaint. Specifically, the admissions admit that the parties entered into a loan agreement on March 26, 2018 and that Plaintiff complied with all the terms of the Agreement. (Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted, filed 04/13/22, Exh. A, Request Nos. 3-4.) Defendant also admits that he defaulted on the loan agreement on August 3, 2021 by failing to may timely payments, causing Plaintiff to be damaged in the amount of $5,078.44, plus interest at 13.74 percent per annum from the date of default, and attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. at Request Nos. 5-8.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendant with the Request for Admissions that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The admissions establish the facts upon which Plaintiff based its Complaint and that Defendant has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint in the Amended Answer. Nor has Defendant filed an opposition to the instant Motion.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Jerry Hilaire is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.