Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV42960, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42960    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 23, 2023                   TRIAL DATE: May 9, 2023

CASE:                         Raymond Mateyko v. Casa Serena, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV42960           

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Bank of America, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Raymond Mateyko

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action, filed on November 22, 2021, for money had and received. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Casa Serena refused to refund a $10,000 fee for an in-patient rehabilitation program which Plaintiff’s daughter terminated early. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) refused to claw back the fee and instead has pursued Plaintiff as owing the fee to BANA.

            Defendant Bank of America, N.A. moves for judgment on the pleadings on the third cause of action for declaratory relief.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

            Defendant Bank of America, N.A. moves for judgment on the pleadings on the third cause of action for declaratory relief.

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).

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).)

The Declaration of defense counsel states that counsel for the parties met and conferred electronically and by telephone on August 16 and 17, 2022. (Declaration of Latrice M. Burks ISO Mot ¶¶3-7.) The parties were unable to resolve this dispute. (Id. ¶ 8.). The Court therefore finds that Defendant has complied with the statutory meet and confer requirements.

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). No pre-trial conference order was entered in this case, and the motion was filed more than 30 days before the initial trial date.

Analysis

           Defendant BANA moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action for declaratory relief on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against it.

           The third cause of action is grounded on Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, which provides:

Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property, or with respect to the location of the natural channel of a watercourse, may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force of a final judgment. The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1060.) To qualify for declaratory relief, a party must “demonstrate its action presented two essential elements: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual question involving justiciable questions relating to [a party’s] rights or obligations.” (Jolley v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 872, 909 [internal citations omitted].)

           Defendant contends that there is no actual controversy because Plaintiff owes Defendant BANA the sum of $10,000 which was paid out to Defendant Casa Serena, regardless of whether Casa Serena is required to return that money to Plaintiff. Defendant BANA offers no legal authority in support of this contention, nor does Defendant refer to any judicially noticed facts to bolster its argument. Mere conclusory assertions are not sufficient for Defendant, as the moving party, to carry its burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for declaratory relief. Further, although Defendant quotes Plaintiff’s allegation that the bank refused to classify the charge to Casa Serena as fraud and ignored Plaintiff’s challenge to the authenticity of the “signed” agreement produced to Defendant by Casa Serena (Moving papers, p. 4), Defendant fails even to address the force of these allegations much less to prove they are insufficient to present an actual controversy primed for resolution. 

CONCLUSION:

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

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  January 23, 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.