Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV24750, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24750    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 18, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Zia Abhari and Donya Entertainment, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange

T/R:      PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Zia Abhari and Donya Entertainment, Inc. sued Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs allege Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by failing to inspect the premises of the business Plaintiff purchased. Plaintiffs allege that had Defendants properly inspected the premises, they would have seen contaminated water intrusion defects that later led to the closing of the business.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice Parts I and III are DENIED as matters not properly subject to judicial notice. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice Part II is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents, but not as to the truth of the contents.

ANALYSIS

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is an appropriate means of obtaining an adjudication of the rights of the parties in a declaratory relief action if those rights can be determined as a matter of law from the face of the pleading attacked, together with those matters of which the court may properly take judicial notice. (Silver v. Beverly Hills Nat. Bank (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1000, 1005 [61 Cal.Rptr. 751].) A plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is analogous to a plaintiff's demurrer to an answer and is evaluated by the same standards. (See Hardy v. Admiral Oil Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 836, 840-842 [16 Cal.Rptr. 894, 366 P.2d 310]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Proceedings Without Trial, § 165, pp. 2819-2820.) The motion should be denied if the defendant's pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense; for purposes of ruling on the motion, the trial court must treat all of the defendant's allegations as being true. (MacIsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 813 [161 P.2d 449].)

(Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kim W. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 326, 330–331.)

Plaintiffs move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that Defendants’ denials are “sham denials.” Plaintiffs rely on extrinsic evidence, such as the subscription agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants, emails between the parties, discovery responses, and letter correspondence. These documents are not subject to judicial notice and cannot be considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.