Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV09008, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV09008 Hearing Date: April 13, 2023 Dept: 50
|
REHAM MAKHOUL, Plaintiff, vs. TESLA
MOTORS, INC., et al. Defendants. |
Case No.: |
22STCV09008 |
|
Hearing Date: |
April 13, 2023 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT TESLA
MOTORS, INC.’S, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND CONTINUANCE OF
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE |
||
Background
Plaintiff
Reham Makhoul (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on March 14, 2022 against Defendant
Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) on April 12, 2022, asserting causes of action for (1) breach
of express warranty (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act), (2) breach of
express warranty (Magnuson-Moss Act), (3) breach of implied warranty (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act), (4) breach of
implied warranty (Magnuson-Moss Act).
Defendant
now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to each of the causes of action of
the FAC.[1]
Plaintiff opposes.
Discussion
Defendant’s motion will have to be continued again for the
reasons set forth below.
On March 1, 2023, the Court issued an Order continuing the
hearing on the instant motion, as Defendant did not file any declaration
demonstrating that the parties met and conferred as required by section 439 of
the Code of Civil Procedure in advance of Defendant filing the motion.
On March 3, 2023, Defendant filed the Declaration of Bradley M. Tanner in support of the instant motion. However, Mr. Tanner’s
Declaration does not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred in person or
by telephone regarding the motion.
As set forth in the Court’s March 1, 2023 Order, pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a), “[b]efore
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. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and
confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a
motion for judgment on the pleadings against the amended pleading.” (Emphasis
added.)
In light
of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings is continued to June 1, 2023
at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50.¿
Defendant is¿ordered
to meet¿and confer¿with Plaintiff¿within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If
the parties are unable to resolve the pleading issues¿or if the parties are
otherwise unable to meet and confer in good faith, Defendant is
to¿thereafter¿file and serve¿a further declaration setting forth the efforts to
meet and confer in compliance with¿Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision
(a)(3) within 15 days of this order.¿
The Case Management Conference also is continued to June 1,
2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this order.¿
DATED:
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court
[1]The Court notes
that although the notice of motion indicates that Defendant “demur[s]” to the
FAC, the caption page of the motion and the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in support of the motion state that the instant motion is a motion
for judgment on the pleadings.