Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21CMCV00052, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 21CMCV00052    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: A

21CMCV00052 On Deck Capital, Inc. v. Driscoll Electric, Inc., et al

TUESDAY, MARCH 7,  2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING AGAINST DEFENDANT, DEREIK DRISCOLL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT, DRISCOLL ELECTRIC, INC.

This action arises from Defendants’ alleged default on a business loan extended by Celtic Bank, who assigned the underlying debt to Plaintiff for collection. The claim alleges a cause of action for breach of contract against Driscoll Electric (“the Company”) whose default the Clerk entered on April 21, 2021. The Company’s principal, Dereik Driscoll (Driscoll), filed an answer on April 15, 2021. Plaintiff now files a motion for judgment on the pleading against the individual Defendant, Driscoll, as well as a request for court judgment by default against the Company.

            A motion for judgment on the pleading can only be made on limited grounds. Where the moving party is a plaintiff, “the motion is based on 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).

            Plaintiff adequately alleges a claim for breach of contract. The contract at issue for a business loan is attached to the complaint and is signed by Driscoll on the Company’s behalf and is personally guaranteed by Driscoll. (Complaint, Ex. A, pdf page 21). Defendants breached the contract by failing to pay $26,062.53. Complaint, ¶ 12.

            Driscoll’s answer, filed April 15, 2021, does not deny any of the complaint’s allegations, nor does it assert any affirmative defense. Instead, Driscoll wishes to make payment arrangements with plaintiff once an agreement has been reached. (Answer, ¶ 5). If the answer fails to put in issue the material allegations of the complaint, judgment may be rendered and entered on the pleadings. (Dobbins v. Hardister (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 787, 792). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleading as alleged against Dereik Driscoll is granted. Driscoll did not dispute the amount of the debt owed, totaling $26,062.53.

            The request for court judgment against the Company is supported by the Declaration of Robert Christy, the custodian of records for Plaintiff, who provides a copy of the contract and the transaction history for the account, showing a balance due of $26,062.53. (Christy Decl, Exhs. A and B). Accordingly, the request for court judgment is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to submit a single judgment against both Defendants, jointly and severally, as shown below. Plaintiff does not request an award for interest.