Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV00320, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 20STCV00320 Hearing Date: September 21, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Defendant City of Los Angeles’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Moving Party: Defendant
City of Los Angeles (“City”)
Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Stephen Glick and Alfred
Garcia (“Plaintiffs”)
Defendant City of Los Angeles’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2020 Plaintiffs
Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against
Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) alleging the following causes of action:
1.
Discrimination
in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing ACT (“FEHA”) (Cal. Gov’t C. §
12940 et seq.);
2.
Retaliation
in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov’t C. § 12940 et seq.)
On August 12, 2022, City moved the
Court “that judgment on the pleadings be entered in favor of Defendant in this
action on Plaintiffs Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia’s Complaint pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure § 438, and other law herein.” (Motion, p.
1:28—2:2.)
On August 26, 2022, Plaintiffs
opposed City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Legal
Standard
“A motion for judgment on the
pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks
only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be
judicially noticed.” (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th
1057, 1064.) “In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all
properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts
that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Fire Ins.
Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) A motion for
judgment on the pleadings does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. (Ibid.)
“In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave
to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the
plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Gami v. Mullikin Medical Ctr.
(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876.) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the
pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi
(2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)
Because a motion for judgment on the
pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, the procedures in
responding to demurrers similarly apply to motions for judgment on the
pleadings. (See e.g., Evinger v. Moran (1910) 14 Cal.App. 328,
329.)
B.
Discussion
1.
Timeliness
No motion may be made pursuant to
this section if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to
Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for
trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits. (CCP, § 438(e).)
Pretrial conference order here is interpreted to mean case management order
under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.728.
The Case Management Order was
issued on December 8, 2020, setting the initial jury trial date in this case
for October 4, 2021. (Minute Order, December 8, 2020, p. 1.) Thirty days before
the initial jury trial date was more than one year ago, on September 4, 2021.
The instant motion was filed eleven months and eight days from the CCP § 438(e)
deadline. The motion is untimely.
Further, the Court notes that
counsel twice requested that the trial be continued because they had engaged
Hon. Rita Miller to mediate the case.
(See Stipulations of 1/3/2022 and 6/1/2022.) The Court does to understand why this untimely
motion was filed, other than to affect the course of an ongoing mediation.
III.
CONCLUSION
Defendant City of Los Angeles’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.