Superior Court of California¿ 

County of Los Angeles¿ 

Department 78¿ 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 15, 2022, plaintiff Juliana Payne (“Plaintiff”) filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Naima Richardson a.k.a. Kitty Bradshaw (“Richardson”), Christopher Valentin aka DJ Phlipz as Doe 1, Tiffany Elder aka Miss Tiffstarr the DJ as Doe 2, Marco Penta as Doe 3, Dustin Worswick aka DJ Epik as Doe 4, Timothy Everdyke aka DJ Tim Tones as Doe 5, Alva Villeta aka Deelite005 as Doe 6, Nina Mendoza as Doe 8, Lisa Weiser aka Lisa Sepassi as Doe 9, Sean Kwasi Anderson as Doe 10, Justin Green aka DJ Lowkey as Doe 11, Les Talusan Olmedo as Doe 12, Steven Hannigan a.k.a. Stevie Hannigan as Doe 13, Patrick Westgate aka Patricks Vinyl as Doe 14, Claudia Velasquez as Doe 15, Kathleen Dubrall (“Dubrall”) as Doe 16, Dave Henry aka DJ Dah Jah as Doe 17, Ryan Charles as Doe 18, and Michele Wilson as Doe 19 for (1) harassment, (2) invasion of privacy – false light, (3) defamation, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (5) intentional interferences with prospective economic advantage, (6) negligence, and (7) injunctive relief.  

Defendants Naima Richardson, Tiffany Elder (Doe 2), Timothy Everdyke (Doe 5), Nina Mendoza (Doe 8), Les Talusan Olmedo (Doe 12), Steven Hannigan (Doe 13),  Patrick Westgate (Doe 14),  Claudia Velasquez (Doe 15), Dave Henry (Doe 17), Ryan Charles (Doe 18) and Michele Wilson (Doe 19) have been dismissed from the matter.  

Defendant Dubrall (Doe 16), in pro per, filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that each cause of action fails to state any facts specific to Dubrall, such that she has insufficient information of the claims against her.  

Plaintiff is in pro per. Any opposition was due on or June 28, 2024; none has been filed to date.  

 

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Dubrall requests the Court take judicial notice of Defendant Naima Richardson’s demurrer and the Court's ruling, the Proof of Service filed by Plaintiff on November 17, 2022, the Court's ruling as to defendant Les Talusan Olmedo's motion to dismiss, and the Court's ruling as to defendant Tiffany Elder's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  

It is neither necessary for this Court to judicially notice matters on its own docket, nor are the documents particularly relevant in assessing Plaintiff’s FAC as it pertains to Dubrall. The request for judicial notice is denied.  

 

III. 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).)    

 

IV. DISCUSSION 

Here, the FAC’s allegations concerning false claims, harassment, and defamatory statements are all pled as conduct made by Richardson.  

The Court agrees that there are no specific allegations connecting any Doe defendant to Richardson’s conduct in order to constitute a cause of action against Dubrall (Doe 16). 

The burden is on Plaintiff to show in what manner she can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to meet this burden. Further, a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (CRC, Rule 8.54.) Accordingly, no leave to amend is granted. 

 

V. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Dubrall’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend.  

Plaintiff’s action as to Dubrall is hereby dismissed.  

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: July 11, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• 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 SMCDEPT78@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.