Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV35364, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35364    Hearing Date: September 29, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

PATRICK CROGHAN, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

TORRANCE HOTEL VENTURE, LLC, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV35364 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS  

  

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

September 29, 2023 

 

I. Background 

On September 24, 2021, Plaintiff, Patrick Croghan (“Decedent”) filed this action against Defendant Torrance Hotel Venture, LLC (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a room safe door left open, wherein on October 11, 2019, Decedent bent down to place his luggage in the closet when he stood up and the safe door hit the top of his head. After the filing of the Complaint, Decedent passed away on January 26, 2023. 

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that there has been no personal representative or successor-in-interest appointed, and therefore the Complaint is deficient.  Plaintiff’s counsel opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.   

 

II. Request for Judicial Notice 

Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint, (2) Plaintiff’s Death Certificate, and (3) Plaintiff’s Dissolution of Marriage Judgment.  

Request 1 is granted as to the existence of document. (Courts can take judicial notice of the fact that complaints were filed, but not of the truth of the statements contained in those. [Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.  (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 483.].) 

Request 2 is denied.  

Request 3 is granted as to the existence of the document, but not to the truth or contents of the matters contained therein. (Judges cannot take judicial notice of hearsay statements asserted in court filings, but can take judicial notice of the existence of such documents. [Johnson & Johnson v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768.].) 

 

III. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

  1. Legal Standard 

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).)   

 

  1. Discussion 

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is statutorily restricted to two grounds: either the Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. (CCP § 438(c)(1)(B).) In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court is limited to considering the face of the complaint or any matter judicially noticeable.  

The Complaint provides, in relevant part that on October 11, 2019 at 4111 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, CA 90505, “The door to the room safe was unsafely placed high in a closet, and the door was left open so that it was hanging out into the air inside the closet. Plaintiff bent down to place his luggage in the closet and when he stood up the safe door hit the top of his head.” (Compl. at p. 4, 5.) The Complaint alleges Defendant negligently owned, maintained, managed, and operated the premises. Accordingly, there are sufficient facts to constitute cause of action for general negligence and premises liability against Defendant. 

Defendant argues that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate because Defendant cannot proceed without a personal representative or successor-in-interest. While not stated explicitly, Defendant appears to argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction. As Defendant itself cites, a pending action does not abate by the death of a party if the cause of action survives. (CCP § 377.21.) Unless the decedent's personal representative is made a party, a judgment should not be rendered for or against a decedent, nor for or against the representative. (See¿Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc.¿(1992) 7 Cal.4th 950, 957;¿Sellery v. Cressey¿(1996) 48 Cal.4th 538, 541, fn. 2.)  Defendant’s contention as to whether Decedent’s former spouse is a putative spouse, or the validity of the marriage in terms of her potential to be the personal representative or successor-in-interest, is entirely outside the scope of a judgment on the pleadings. Furthermore, even if Decedent’s former spouse is deemed not be the successor or personal representative, that does not necessarily mean that there exists no other person to step into Decedent’s place as his personal representative or successor-in-interest.  

Furthermore, Defendant does not cite to any authority which addresses the situation presented here before the Court, where a personal representative or successor-in-interest has not yet been appointed for Decedent, nor is there any authority to suggest that this issue may be resolved upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.  

 

The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s counsel avers they have located Plaintiff’s next of kin as the successor in interest. It has been eight months since Decedent’s passing. The Court expects Plaintiff’s counsel to file a motion to substitute Decedent with the successor in interest in a timely manner. Therefore, the Court will set an OSC Re: substitution of Plaintiff’s successor in interest for ________________.   If Plaintiff’s counsel fails to appear at the OSC and fails to provide a reasonable timeline in which the successor-in-interest will be substituted in, Plaintiff’s counsel risks the Court dismissing the action. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • The Court is not available to hear oral argument on this date.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance. 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 28th day of September 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court