Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00017979-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 11, 2023

10/13/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00017979-CU-BC-CTL GREEN VS HANLON [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is DENIED.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Green ('Plaintiff') challenges the cause of action for declaratory relief. Defendant and Cross-Complainant David Hanlon ('Defendant') asserts the motion must be denied because Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing the motion.

'Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a).) The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration stating either of the following: (A) The means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a)(3).) Notwithstanding the requirements above, '[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a)(4).) Further, counsel did provide a declaration stating a meet and confer effort was made. The Court notes that it elected to consider the opposition, notwithstanding any alleged service defects.

Plaintiff essentially argues the declaratory relief cause of action is not warranted because Defendant does not question the meaning of the contract and that Defendant has admitted to breaching the contract. However, Defendant filed an answer denying Plaintiff's allegations and the cross-complaint does not make the admission Plaintiff asserts.

The two essential elements for a declaratory relief cause of action are: '(1) a proper subject of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2970377 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GREEN VS HANLON [IMAGED]  37-2022-00017979-CU-BC-CTL declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.' (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546 [Citation omitted].) Defendant has alleged a proper subject for relief – a dispute over an alleged contract. Defendant has also alleged an actual controversy that this Court can resolve – whether the contract is enforceable. The declaratory relief cause of action is sufficiently alleged. The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2970377