Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV21039, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV21039    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

Order to Show Cause re: Why the Court Should Not, on its Own Motion, Grant a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the First Amended Complaint as to Defendant Asset Default Management, Inc.

On October 31, 2023, the court set for hearing on December 12, 2023, an Order to Show Cause re: why the court should not, on the court’s own motion, grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the First Amended Complaint, filed by plaintiffs Shai Harris, as successor trustee of the H. McClenon Trust dated December 12, 2019, and Shai Harris, as trustee of the ADH Harris Trust dated January 14, 2020 (“Plaintiffs”), as to defendant Asset Default Management, Inc. (“Defendant”) because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438.

The court ordered that any response to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed and served no later than nine court days before the hearing.  Plaintiffs did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause.

The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the First Amended Complaint for the administering of an unconscionable contract or clause under Uniform Commercial Code section 2-302 because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant since there is no affirmative cause of action for unconscionability, which is a defense to the enforcement of a contract.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii); Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1539 [“there is no cause of action for unconscionability under [Civil Code] section 1670.5; that doctrine is only a defense to contract enforcement”]; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1530-1531 [the California Legislature, in enacting Civil Code section 1670.5, “adopted the doctrine of unconscionability enunciated in Section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code”]; Hines v. US Bankcorp (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2021) 2021 WL 3923248 at pp. *2-3 [dismissing third cause of action for violation of section 2-302 of the UCC because unconscionability is not an affirmative cause of action].) Plaintiffs did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause with the court demonstrating that unconscionability is a valid cause of action.  Thus, the court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant.

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)¿ The court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show how they could amend their pleading to render it sufficient against Defendant and therefore grants its motion without leave to amend.

ORDER

            The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant Asset Management, Inc. on the First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiffs Shai Harris, as successor trustee of the H. McClenon Trust dated December 12, 2019, and Shai Harris, as trustee of the ADH Harris Trust dated January 14, 2020.

            The court orders that defendant Asset Default Management, Inc., is dismissed from this action with prejudice.

            The court also notes that (1) on October 30, 2023, the court entered judgment of dismissal, with prejudice, as to defendants Teresa Gorman Martinez and Ruben Martinez, trustees of GM Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and (2) on October 31, 2023, the court dismissed defendants Lil Wave Financial, Inc., d/b/a Superior Loan Servicing (erroneously sued separately as Lil Wave Financial, Inc., and Superior Loan Servicing) and Funding Rush, Inc. from this action with prejudice.

Thus, because all of the defendants named in the First Amended Complaint have been dismissed, the court directs the clerk to dispose of this case as completed.

            The court directs the clerk to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 12, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court