Judge Thomas S. Mcconville, Case 2021-01199945 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2021-01199945, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Mehdi Movaghar’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. CCP 438; Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal. App. 5^th 734. The court need not address whether Defendant’s motion is properly brought as a non-statutory motion, as it fails under all standards.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same legal framework in considering a demurrer. Templo v. State of California (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5^th 730, 735. “Both a demurrer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings accept as true all material factual allegations of the challenged pleading, unless contrary to law or to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. The sole issue is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action as a matter of law.” Tung 63 Cal. App. 5^th at 743-744. Here, Defendant has already challenged by demurrer the causes of action challenged in the current motion, which challenge was overruled. (ROA 95).

The difference between the prior demurrer and the current motion is that defendant attempts to rely on facts outside of the pleadings. Yet defendant did not properly request judicial notice of any outside facts. Indeed, defendant asks the court to disregard any mention of defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Reply at 3). “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. 4^th 995, 999.

Therefore, the court is limited to the pleadings. And as previously stated, the current challenged causes of action have already been found to be properly pleaded.

It appears to the court, based on the briefs, that defendant is seeking to convert the motion for judgment on the pleadings into an evidentiary motion, which the court declines to do. It may be that certain facts exist (relating to a bankruptcy proceeding involving a different defendant) that might demonstrate that plaintiff does not have standing to pursue these causes of action. But those facts are not properly before the court. But even if the court were to consider the few facts that are attached to defendant’s briefs, additional facts would be necessary for the court to reach the standing issue raised by defendant.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Defendant shall give notice.