Judge Robert S. Draper, Case Number: 21STCV32420, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV32420, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32420 Hearing Date: April 26, 2023 Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COURTNEY HANLON,

Defendant. Case No.: 21STCV32420

Hearing Date: April 26, 2023

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PLAINTIFF HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

Plaintiff Hartford Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

At hearing, the Court will consider defendant Courtney Hanlon’s arguments as to whether leave to amend should be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for an unpaid bond. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) issued to Defendant Courtney Hanlon dba Hanlon Talent Agency (“Defendant”) a License and Permit Bond (the “Bond”) in the amount of $50,000.00. (Compl. ¶ 7; Exh. A.) The Bond was issued pursuant to an application and indemnity agreement (the “Agreement”) that provides a personal guarantee of indemnification of Plaintiff regarding the Bond. (Compl. ¶ 8; Exh. B.)

Commencing March 13, 2020, Plaintiff received claims on the Bond from SAG AFTRA regarding unpaid wages paid by third parties to Defendant which Defendant failed to pay performers; the Bond was liable for this failure. (Compl. ¶ 12.; Exh. C.)

Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant regarding the Bond, but could not reach him by phone or by written correspondence. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Receiving no word from Defendant, Plaintiff paid SAG AFTRA the total sum of $50,000.00 as required by the Bond. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Though Plaintiff has requested repayment from Defendant, no payment was received. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting five causes of action:

1. Breach of Contract;

2. Reimbursement Under CC § 2848;

3. Account Stated;

4. Open Book; and,

5. Money Paid

On January 27, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer.

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

As of April 21, 2023, no Opposition has been filed. Any Opposition was due by April 13, 2023.

DISCUSSION

I. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).)

Here, Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the following:

1. Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this action. (Exh. A.)

2. Answer filed by Defendant in this action. (Exh. B.)

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.

II. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438.

A plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings where “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (CCP § 438(c)(1)(A).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) “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. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).) The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)

Here, Plaintiff contends that the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action against Defendant.

Upon review of the Complaint, the Court agrees. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff issued Defendant a Bond for $50,000 based on an Agreement containing an indemnification clause. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8; Exhs. A-B.) Plaintiff paid the full amount of the bond after Defendant failed to pay performers money due on which the Bond was liable. (Compl. ¶ 12, 14.) Plaintiff has demanded repayment of the Bond pursuant to the Agreement, but Defendant has refused. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

The Court finds that the allegations constitute a breach of contract upon which Plaintiff’s requested relief can be founded.

In his Answer, Defendant admits all statements of the complaint, except:

Defendant was forced to close his business due to the production shutdown arising for the global Covid 19 pandemic. The defendant is indigent at this point and unable to pay all or part of this claim and will face bankruptcy should it be enforced. The additional $25,000 sought for collection is unreasonable and egregious. (RFJN Exh. B.)

The Court finds that the Answer admits all the material facts of the Complaint, but fails to state a relevant defense. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

However, as Defendant might have affirmative defenses such as failure to mitigate damages or unjust enrichment with respect to the $25,000 in collection fees, the Court will consider Defendant’s arguments at hearing as to whether leave to amend the Answer should be granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. At hearing, the Court will determine if leave to amend should be granted.

DATED: April 26, 2023

____________________________

Hon. Jill T. Feeney

Judge of the Superior Court