Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01248, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01248    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 1, ,2023, plaintiff Dajun Sun dba S&T US., Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants MB Truck Repair Inc. (“MB”) and Junzhou Huo (“Huo”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for breach of contract, negligence, breach of warranty, and declaratory relief. The action arises from repair services provided by Defendants to a truck owned by Plaintiff.

On February 20, 2025, Defendants filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On March 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.

On March 10, 2025, Defendants filed a reply brief.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) The motion made be made as to the entire complaint or as to any of the causes of action stated therein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(2)(A).) Like a demurrer, the grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings “shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Code of Civil Procedure, section 367provides, “[e]very action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” Generally speaking, a party lacks standing to assert a claim that belongs to another person. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1004.) Code of Civil Procedure, section 367 prohibits persons from pursuing claims they themselves do not own. (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 936.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint, which attaches invoices, shows that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action because the repairs were billed to 3 Way Express, Inc. (“3 Way Express”) and the remaining exhibits refer to “S&T Us, Inc.” (“S&T”), neither of which is a party to this action. Defendant further notes that there are no allegations in the Complaint connecting Plaintiff to either 3 Way Express or S&T.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is requesting the Court look beyond the pleadings and evaluate extrinsic evidence, which is not permissible on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Plaintiff misconstrues the role of exhibits in interpreting a pleading because specific factual allegations in the complaint modify and limit inconsistent general statements. (B & P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga (1985) 185 Cal.App.3d 949, 953; Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court of Kern County (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 697, 709.) Therefore, a general description of an exhibit attached to the complaint will be disregarded where inconsistent with the exhibit, which is considered part of the complaint. (B&P, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 953.)

Nevertheless, Defendants’ argument lacks merit because courts may not resolve disputes regarding the underlying truth or proper interpretation of the statements within these exhibits on demurrer. (Panterra, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 709.) Here, as an initial matter, the plaintiff is Dajun Sun, who does business under the fictitious business name “S&T US, Inc.” Therefore, the references to S&T in the exhibits are actually referring to Plaintiff because the designation of a DBA does not create a separate legal entity. (Pinkerton’s, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1342.) “The business name is a fiction, and so too is any implication that the business is a legal entity separate from its owner.” (Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App,4th 1194, 1200.) Second, even though the invoice between MB names 3 Way Express, and not S&T, the invoice refers to “TRUCK #27,” which is also identified in Exhibit B alongside S&T/Plaintiff. This creates a factual dispute regarding the parties to the contract for repair services which cannot be resolved at this stage of the pleadings.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Dated this 17th day of March 2025

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.