Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV22002, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 24STCV22002    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendant Edith Robinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

The court will inquire whether leave to amend should be granted at the hearing.

Background

            On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff Jessie Stone (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Edith Robinson (“Defendant”) alleging a cause of action for intentional tort.

            On January 30, 2025, the Clerk’s office, at the request of Plaintiff, entered default against Defendant.

            On March 19, 2025, the parties stipulated to setting aside Defendant’s default.

            On March 20, 2025, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

            On May 8,  2025, Defendant filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On June 5, 2025, Defendant filed a reply. On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

“A party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (b)(1).) “The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following

grounds: . . . (B) If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist:

(i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. (ii)

The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that

defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).)

“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.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999,

citations omitted.)

“In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts

are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly

alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)

Discussion

            Defendant moves the court for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s sole claim for intentional tort on the basis that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Motion, at p. 4.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not specify the particular tort alleged. (Ibid.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing any intentional acts or intent on behalf of Defendant. (Ibid.)

            The court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint is comprised of a single cause of action titled “Intentional Tort” which appears to be claiming emotional distress. (Complaint, at pp. 4-6.) in support, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted with the intent to humiliate Plaintiff in front of others in different occasions. (Ibid.) As presently alleged, however, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress or any of other cause of action. It is not clear which cause of action Plaintiff actually attempts to allege. Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to describe which facts are applicable to which elements of any cause of action.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for bullying. (Opp., at p. 2.) However, Plaintiff fails to provide any authority stating that a cause of action for bullying exists or what elements such cause of action entails.[1]

            The motion is granted. 

Conclusion

Defendant Edith Robinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. The court will inquire whether leave to amend should be granted at the hearing.