Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV47525, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47525    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On December 1, 2023, defendants Ty Labbe and Liza Gonzalez (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their answer to the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). The TAC was served on April 14, 2023. On December 4, 2023, Defendants filed this motion for “[j]udgment on the [p]leadings” with respect to “select portions” of the TAC. Defendants admit that their motion, although styled as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, is actually brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP statute”); they argue that allegations from Plaintiffs’ first, fourth, and fifth causes of action must be stricken because they are partially “based upon the alleged statements and reports made by defendant Ty Labbe to police which are protected by his first amendment right to seek redress from the police.” (Motion, p. 2.)

A motion brought under the anti-SLAPP statute must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint or amended complaint. Thereafter, a motion may only be permitted in the court’s discretion “upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, subd. (f).) The anti-SLAPP statute is intended to allow for the prompt resolution of disputes before significant pretrial discovery expenses are incurred. As Plaintiffs note in their opposition brief, the TAC was served 8 months before Defendants filed this motion and this case is scheduled for trial on May 20, 2024. Defendants offer no reason for the delay in filing this motion in their moving papers and Defendants did not file a reply brief to respond to the arguments of untimeliness raised by Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court cannot find that there are any “proper” terms which would allow it to exercise its discretion to consider this motion.

To the extent that Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to the actual applicable statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 438, their motion fails because they are not requesting an order striking Plaintiffs’ negligence or defamation claims in their entirety. (Motion, pp. 2-3.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings may only be made as to the entire complaint or any of the causes of action stated therein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(2)(A).)

Accordingly, Defendants’ “motion for judgment on the pleadings” is DENIED.

Dated this 27th day of February, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.