Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2022-01277095, Date: 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Plaintiff Arizona Bank & Trust’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings by plaintiff can be made on the ground that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and “the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c).) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or be based on facts the court may judicially notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438m, subd. (d); Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, 758-59.)

An answer denying material allegations of the complaint are sufficient as against general demurrer and to preclude judgment on pleadings. This is true even if the denial is based upon a lack of sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation. See Cuneo v. Lawson (1928) 203 Cal. 190, 192 & 193; Neale v. Morrow (1916) 174 Cal. 49, 54. As the answer here denies most of the material allegations of the complaint, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. Judicial notice is limited to the existence of, filing/recording or, and legal effect of the records, but not as to the truth of facts stated therein.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is based upon the face of the challenged pleadings and it is unnecessary for the court to take judicial notice of the same. (See Superior Court v. County of Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 59, fn. 7 [“[T]his material is not relevant and accordingly we deny the request for judicial notice.”]; Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.)

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.