Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV24913, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24913    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   March 20, 2024                                              

CASE NAME:           Denis M. Bey v. Terrence Baine, et al.

CASE NO.:                23STCV24913

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Makaha Properties, LLC, as Trustee of the Sunset Plaza Drive Trust #2287, UDT 03/11/19, erroneously sued as Terence Baine

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of March 15, 2024

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      Judgment on the pleadings.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED with leave to amend.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff in pro per Denis M. Bey filed a Complaint against Defendants Terence Baine, Daniel Rivera, and Lann Niemeyer (Defendants) for unlawful detainer. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is the owner of property located at 2287 Sunset Plaza Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90069. Plaintiff apparently filed a Writ of Possession on September 1, 2023.

On January 16, 2024, Defendant Makaha Properties, LLC, as Trustee of the Sunset Plaza Drive Trust #2287, UDT 03/11/19, erroneously sued as Terence Baine (Makaha) filed an Answer.

On January 25, 2024, Makaha filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Oppositions were due on or before March 7, 2024. As of March 15, 2024, there are no oppositions filed with the court.

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Trust, Affidavit Adverse Claim of Title and Reversion of Ancestral Estate, and Writ of Quo Warranto.

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Default Notice.

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Writ of Error.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Judgment on the Pleadings 

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings if (i) the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or (ii) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action alleged in the complaint. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 438(b)(2), and subd. (c).) “The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a general demurrer: We treat the pleadings as admitting all of the material facts properly pleaded, but not any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law contained therein. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice.” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1281, 1298.)¿ 

The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Ibid.)¿ 

A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.¿ App. 3d 593, 604.) But this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.¿ (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.)¿ 

Meet and Confer 

As with demurrers and motions to strike, and subject to enumerated exceptions, the parties are required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings.² (CCP § 439, § 430.41, § 435.) However, this is not required for unlawful detainer actions. (CCP § 439(d)(2).)

Request for Judicial Notice

The court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 452(h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) Where, as here, judicial notice is requested of a legally operative document—like a contract—the court may take notice not only of the fact of the document and its recording or publication, but also facts that clearly derive from its legal effect. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 754-55.) 

ANALYSIS:

Makaha contends Plaintiff’s Complaint for unlawful detainer fails because it is devoid of any factual allegations and Makaha is the owner of the subject property. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

Here, the court has reviewed the Complaint and agrees with Makaha that it fails to allege facts supporting Plaintiff’s claim for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff’s attachment indicates a Writ of Possession from a foreign entity for the subject property dated December 2, 2022. (Compl. Exhibit A.) However, Makaha provided two grant deeds from June 9, 2022 and June 10, 2022 indicating that Plaintiff does not own the subject property. Even assuming that Plaintiff is the landlord, there are no other facts alleged in the Complaint indicating that Plaintiff complied with the requirements of CCP § 1161 or otherwise supporting Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Leave to Amend 

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted with or without leave to amend. (CCP § 438(h)(1).) Leave to amend should be granted “if there is any reasonably possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852.) “[D]enial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of distraction if the pleading does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (Ibid.)  

The Court is just as puzzled as moving party to discern what cause of action is alleged. Moreover. the Court questions the authentication of the documents filed by Plaintiff. No opposition was filed. The Court cannot currently conceive of any possible way to amend the complaint. Nonetheless, the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. Accordingly, unless Plaintiff can explain any reasonable possibility to state a cause of action at the hearing, the Court will deny leave to amend.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             March 20, 2024                       __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court