Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV47912, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47912     Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Defendant Vlad Gold’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is MOOT.

Legal Standard

When the moving party is a defendant, a motion for judgment on the pleading may be granted where either of the following conditions exist: (i) the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or (ii) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(B).)

The motion may be made to the entire complaint or answer, or one of the causes of actions or affirmative defenses.  (Id. at (c)(2).)  The motion may be made only after the defendant has filed an answer to the complaint and the time to demur to the complaint has expired.  (Id. at (f)(2).)  Further, the grounds for this motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court may take judicial notice.  (Id. at (d); Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1380.)   Thus, a motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired.

Judgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution.  (See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516; Lance Camper Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198; Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the moving party shall meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to determine if an agreement can be reached. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a).) However, a determination by the Court that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not grounds to grant or deny the motion. (Id. at (a)(4).) 

Discussion

Defendant Vlad Gold moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action for fraud in the First Amended Complaint. However, on May 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint was granted. Notably, the SAC adds allegations to the third cause of action. Thus, the instant motion is MOOT.

The Court also notes that Defendant Gold did not file the required meet and confer declaration.

Conclusion

Defendant Vlad Gold’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is MOOT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.