I. BACKGROUND  

Plaintiff Carlos Francisco Chevez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Mohammed Ruhul Amin (“Amin”) and Day & Nite Mini Mart & Grocery (“Mini Mart”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 21, 2020. The complaint sets forth two causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence against all defendants.   

Mini Mart now moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against it. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Any reply was due on or before April 8, 2024; Mini Mart filed an untimely reply on April 10, 2024.  

II. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

In connection with the motion, Mini Mart requests the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Fictitious Business Name Statement of Mini Mart, and (2) Form 1099-NEC – Nonemployee Compensation, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§452(d)(1) and 453. 

The requests are DENIED. The documents are neither court records of this state, nor has Mini Mart provided sufficient information to enable this Court to take judicial notice of the documents. A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer. In other words, following the same standard of a general demurrer, this hearing “‘may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of affidavits, declarations, depositions, and other such material which was filed on behalf of the adverse party and which purports to contradict the allegations and contentions of the plaintiff.’” (Johnson v. Honeywell Intern. Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 559-60.) Furthermore, judicial notice is improper to resolve the very dispute over the fact that occasioned the request for judicial notice. (Cruz v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 173 Cal. App. 3d 1131, 1134.) 

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (C.C.P. §438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).) 

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]”  (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.)  “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. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).)  The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)   

Mini Mart avers that Plaintiff and Amin resolved their dispute, and settled Plaintiff’s claim for personal injury in exchange for $1,000 by executing a release of liability on March 9, 2020. Because the claim Plaintiff may have against Amin has been resolved, Mini Mart argues it must be dismissed with prejudice. Further, Mini Mart avers that there is no supporting evidence that Amin was an employee, and that Mini Mart is not vicariously liable because Amin was an independent contractor.  

The Court’s review is limited to the face of the pleading and all matters judicially noticeable. Here, Mini Mart’s arguments rely entirely on extrinsic evidence that is not judicially noticeable for the reasons provided above. “The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.) Here, the complaint alleges in relevant part that “Defendant MOHAMMED RUHUL AMIN, during the scope and course of his employment with Defendant, DAY & NITE MINI MART & GROCERY, negligently, recklessly and carelessly and in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22106 reversed his vehicle out of the parking space and caused his vehicle to impact Plaintiff, CHEVEZ causing Plaintiff to sustain significant injuries.” (Compl. at p. 4.)  

Taking the allegations as true, for the purposes of this motion, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts of duty, breach, causation, and damages. Any uncertainties giving rise to finding vicarious liability against Mini Mart, or any specific evidence concerning Mini Mart’s relationship with Amin who was driving the subject vehicle, cannot be resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleading. Mini Mart’s arguments that Amin was actually an independent contractor is an issue of material fact more appropriate for a motion for summary judgment. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 316, 321–22 [“ ‘Judgment on the pleadings does not depend upon a resolution of questions of witness credibility or evidentiary conflicts. In fact, judgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution. [Citation.]’ ”.) 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Mini Mart’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 12th day of April 2024