Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV46004, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46004    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     February 14, 2023                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

                                                          

CASE:                         Oliver Nguyen, et al. v. Deborah Canter, et al.

 

CASE NO.:                 20STCV46004           

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

 

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Deborah Canter, Jennifer Canter, and Patricia Romano

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Oliver Nguyen and Anh Phan

 

PROOF OF SERVICE:

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is an action for breach of contract and common counts filed on December 2, 2020. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, as former tenants in a property owned by Plaintiffs, breached their lease agreement by failing to pay rent and causing severe damage to the premises.

 

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings.

           

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

            Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety.

 

//

 

 

Legal Standard

 

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent of a general demurrer.  (Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198).  Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity.  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994). Any defects must either appear on the face of the pleading, or else be taken by judicial notice.  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-22).  The parties’ ability to prove their respective claims is of no concern.  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 99.)  Though the Court must accept the allegations of the complaint and answer as true (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515), it will not do so for “conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or [judicially noticed] facts…” (Stevenson Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Servs., Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219-20).

 

Missing Proof of Service

 

Defendants did not file a proof of service with either their motion or their request for judicial notice. Defendants have therefore not established that this motion was properly served as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). However, as Plaintiffs have not objected to the motion on this basis, the Court will overlook this defect and address the motion on its merits.

 

Meet and Confer

 

Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a).) However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a)(4).)

 

Defendants do not provide a declaration, or any evidence whatsoever, detailing any attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiffs as to this issue. Defendants have not complied with their statutory meet and confer obligations. However, the Court will nevertheless address the motion on its merits.

 

Timing

 

           A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought by a defendant at any time after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(f)). Unless a court orders otherwise, a motion for judgment on the pleadings may not be made after entry of a pre-trial conference order, (Cal. Rules of Court 3.720-3.730) or 30 days before the initial trial date, whichever is later. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(e). A non-jury trial was previously scheduled for December 20, 2022.  On December 6 2022, however, the Court ordered at a Final Status Conference, that the non-jury trial be placed off calendar, and that Defendants reserve the hearing on this motion for this date, and serve and file the motion by January 18, 2023. (December 6, 2022 Minute Order.) As the Court expressly ordered that this motion be served, filed, and scheduled to be heard on this date, the Court necessarily finds that the motion is timely.

 

Request for Judicial Notice

 

            Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Complaint and Answer in Cantor v. Nguyen, LASC Case No. 19STCV26776; (2) the settlement agreement in the same case, and (3) the stipulation lodged in the unlawful detainer action Nguyen v. Cantor, LASC Case No. 19VEUD019494. As these documents are not relevant to the Court’s ruling, Defendants’ requests are DENIED. (Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 (“[J]udicial notice . . . is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.”].) 

 

Analysis

 

            Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30 as compulsory crossclaims which have been waived due to settlement in a previous civil action.

 

            Section 426.30 provides, in relevant part:

 

(a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.

 

(Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30(a).) A “related cause of action” is “a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 426.10(c).) A contention that an action is barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30 must be specially pleaded as an affirmative defense, or else it is waived. (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1153.) Here, Defendants filed their answer on May 5, 2021, without specially pleading that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by section 426.30. (See generally Answer.) Defendants have therefore waived the right to assert this defense as a basis for judgment on the pleadings or otherwise.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

 

            Moving Parties to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: February 14, 2023                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

 


            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.