Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV48640, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48640    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Young Chon (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Uber USA, LLC (Defendant) based on medical conditions, including an arrhythmia, which Plaintiff allegedly suffered after beginning to work as an Uber driver.  Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

ANALYSIS

1.      FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, but may be made after the time to demur has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).)  “The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds:  . . .  (B) If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist:  (i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.  (ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c).) 

“Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1013.)  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.” (Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.)

Further, “[a] motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.  Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.”  (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [cleaned up]; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Riverside (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 679, 684–685 [“A defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the plaintiff's complaint does not state a cause of action”].) 

Here, Defendant argues that the motion should be granted because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim.  Moreover, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify a cause of action against Defendant.  Thus, as Defendant claims, Plaintiff’s complaint is defective.  The Court agrees.

Upon review, the Court finds that the complaint contains 23 paragraphs of factual assertions but no identifiable cause of action or cognizable claim asserted by Plaintiff.  Thus, the Court cannot determine if Plaintiff is asserting causes of action sounded in negligence or contract, or asserting claims for lost wages or compensation, whether based on contract or statute. 

And even if the Court were to deduce that Plaintiff’s complaint is sounded in negligence, the Court would still find the complaint to be flawed.  As the complaint stands, Plaintiff has not pled the ultimate facts necessary to state a cause of action for negligence against Defendant.  Ultimate facts are those “constituting the cause of action” or those upon which liability depends, e.g., duty of care, breach of the duty and causation (damages).  (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) [1]  

In short, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a valid cause of action. 

2.      LEAVE TO AMEND

A plaintiff has the burden of showing in what manner the first amended complaint could be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the complaint, i.e., state a cause of action. (See The Inland Oversight Committee v City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, 779; PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 189.) A plaintiff must not only state the legal basis for the amendment, but also the factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action or claim. (See PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 189.)  Moreover, a plaintiff does not meet his or her burden by merely stating in the opposition to a demurrer or motion to strike that “if the Court finds the operative complaint deficient, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend.”  (See Major Clients Agency v Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133; Graham v Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 618 [asserting an abstract right to amend does not satisfy the burden].)

Here, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden as noted. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

Defendant shall provide notice of this Court’s ruling and file proof of service of such.