Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV01196, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21VECV01196 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: W
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC v. SYEID SHANDALOO
plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
Department: W Case No.: 21VECV01196
Moving Party: Plaintiff Motor Credit Company LLC
Responding Party: No opposition
Meet and Confer: Yes. (Chen Decl. ¶8.)
BACKGROUND
This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company LLC filed a complaint against Defendant Shandaloo on September 3, 2021. Plaintiff alleges on August 3, 2016, Defendant Shandaloo entered a written Retail Installment Contract (“contract”) with Galpin Motors Inc. for a Ford F-350. Plaintiff was assigned the contract for value. Defendant breached the contract by failing to make the required timely payments.
Default was entered against Defendant on April 5, 2022. On July 6, 2022, the court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside/vacate default.
Plaintiff then sought to have Defendant’s responses deemed admitted to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, set one. The court granted Plaintiff’s request.
[Tentative] Ruling
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Plaintiff requests this court take judicial notice of this court’s Minute Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted (Exh. 1). Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
discussion
Plaintiff moves this court for an order granting judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438(c)(1)(a) on the grounds that the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant and Defendant is deemed to have admitted to all the elements of Plaintiff’s cause of action against them. Defendant did not file an opposition.
It is well established in California that either prior to trial or at the trial the plaintiff or the defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings and that the appropriate ground for such a motion is the same as that arguable by general demurrer, namely, the failure to state a cause of action or defense. (Dobbins v. Hardister (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 787, 791; See also Sofias v. Bank of America (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 583, 586 [The non statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings can be made at any time, even during trial, since the grounds for a general demurrer are never waived.].)
The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s motion relies on the requests for admissions that it propounded on Defendant on August 9, 2022. This court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem its requests for admissions admitted on December 13, 2022. “[A]dmissions or concessions of matters which cannot be reasonably be controverted are properly considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. [citation omitted].” (Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 540, 549.) Since the court deemed the requests for admission propounded upon Defendant (and the court’s order has been judicially noticed) admitted, this has the same effect as if Defendant served responses admitting to each of the requests for admission.
The admitted request for admissions support Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant. The sole cause of action against Defendant alleges Defendant breached the written Retail Installment contract by failing to make timely payments on the vehicle and Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s breach and failure to pay the balanced owed of $37,222.87. Defendant has admitted (1) he entered into the contract; (2) the contract was assigned to Plaintiff for valuable consideration; (3) on September 13, 2019, Defendant breached this contract by failing to make the required payments; (4) Plaintiff has not recovered or resold the collateral; (5) as a result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has been damaged in the principal sum of $37,222.87; and (6) according to the contract, Plaintiff is entitled to interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. (Chen Decl., Exh. 1.)
Since Plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s judgment in the sum of $37,222.87 damages, $4,784.61 interest, $1,506.69 attorneys’ fees and 24 $482.00 costs of court, for a total judgment of $44,001.17 is GRANTED.