Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV04160, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04160    Hearing Date: November 1, 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

The court considered the Petition.  No response to the Order to Show Cause was filed.  

DISCUSSION

Petitioners Gabriela Aguinaldo, Selma Aguinaldo, and Ferdinand Aguinaldo (“Petitioners”) filed the Petition for Ordinary Mandamus and Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Temporary and Permanent Restraining Order (the “Petition”) in this action on February 24, 2023, against respondent Fly High Altadena, LLC (“Respondent”).

On June 26, 2023, the court set for hearing an Order to Show Cause re: why the court should not, on its motion, grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings because Petitioners do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Respondent.  Petitioners 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 cause of action for writ of ordinary mandate because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since (1) “[a] court may issue a writ of mandate only if the petitioner establishes: ([A]) a clear, present . . . ministerial duty on the part of the respondent; ([B]) a correlative clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty [citations]; and ([C]) no plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy exists [citation][,]” but (2) Petitioners have not alleged the existence of a clear, present, ministerial duty on the part of Respondent and a correlating right in Petitioners to the performance of that duty, and instead have alleged that Respondent acted negligently.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii); Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 815, 824 [internal quotations omitted]; Pet., ¶¶ 44-49 [Respondent was negligent (i) in failing to remove, cover, or cut flush to the concrete the subject bolts, (ii) in failing to close off the section with the exposed bolts, and (iii) in failing to provide first aid assistance to injured patron].)

The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the second cause of action for declaratory relief because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Petitioners have not alleged the existence of an active, “‘actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.’”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii), 1060; Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546.)  Instead, Petitioners have requested the court issue general declarations that Respondent was negligent and operates an adventure park business without regard to the safety of its customers, which does not allege a controversy “relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties,” i.e., Petitioners and Respondent.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.) 

ORDER

            The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings as to petitioners Gabriela Aguinaldo, Selma Aguinaldo, and Ferdinand Aguinaldo’s Petition for Ordinary Mandamus and Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, Temporary and Permanent Restraining Order without leave to amend.

The court orders that this action filed by petitioners Gabriela Aguinaldo, Selma Aguinaldo, and Ferdinand Aguinaldo is dismissed.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 1, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court