Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV31263, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31263    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party:  Defendants/Cross-Complainants Launch with Us, LLC, Mike Lee, and Jody Hashimoto

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant In Hospitality LLC

Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff In Hospitality LLC filed its Complaint against Defendants Launch with Us, LLC, Mike Lee, and Jody Hashimoto on various causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s contractual relationship(s) with Defendants.

On December 5, 2022, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Answer to the Complaint and their Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants In Hospitality, LLC, Dong Hyuk Lee, Jeff Jun, and Kevin Minsoo Son.

On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant In Hospitality LLC (“Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant”) filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On February 27, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendants/Cross-Complainants concurrently filed their Form CIV-140, Declaration of Demurring or Moving Party Regarding Meet and Confer.

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed its Opposition. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant concurrently filed its Request for Judicial Notice.

On March 17, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Reply. Defendants/Cross-Complainants concurrently filed their Proposed Order.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of:

(1)       The Complaint in this matter; and

(2)       The Cross-Complaint in this matter.

Judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)¿ 

II.        Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

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. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (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. (Id.) “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 Med. 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

Defendants/Cross-Complainants move the Court for judgment on the pleadings. (Motion, p. 6:14–18.) Defendants/Cross-Complainants generally argue that the Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, although the only specific argument is that Plaintiff lacks standing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 367. (Id. at p. 5:1–11.) This is ostensibly because Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is not the same party listed on the underlying contract in this matter. (Id.) The Court does not reach arguments only generally argued.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ reliance upon the ambiguous terms of the lease is misplaced; (2) Defendants/Cross-Complainants admit that the lease was entered between Plaintiff and Defendant Launch with Us, LLC; (3) the Parties clearly intended that Plaintiff would be the lessee on the lease; (4) Plaintiff is the real party in interest on the lease; (5) any ambiguity must be construed against Defendants/Cross-Complainants, who are the drafters of the lease; (6) Plaintiff would be entitled to reform the lease; and (7) the incorrect name on the lease does not affect the remaining non-contract claims. (Opposition, pp. 3:4, 4:20–21, 5:9–10, 6:1, 6:14, 6:247:16–17.)

Defendants/Cross-Complainants argue in their Reply: (1) that the language of the lease cannot be so easily ignored; and (2) that corporate formalities cannot be so easily ignored. (Reply, pp. 2:5, 3:16.)

“The court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error, improper ruling, instruction, or defect, in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)

Here, the limited evidence before the Court strongly suggests that the error or defect alleged in the pleading — that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant In Hospitality LLC (i.e., the party that filed the Complaint) is not the same party listed on the underlying contract in this matter (i.e., In Hospitality Group, and In Hospitality) — does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (Motion, Ex. A, p. 1, Item 1.1 and p. 17.) Defendants/Cross-Defendants do not dispute that there is actually a contract, that Defendants drafted the contract, or that the Parties clearly intended for In Hospitality LLC to be the party listed on the contract. Further, Defendants/Cross-Complainants themselves state that In Hospitality LLC was the lessee.  (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 3, 8.)

The Court DENIES the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

C.      Conclusion 

Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.