Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV4893, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 20STCV4893 Hearing Date: January 27, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as MOOT.
Background
On December 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Ariadna Jacob and Influences, Inc. filed a Complaint against Levi Estates, LLC; Eli Levi; and Does 1 to 10.
The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) Conversion, (2) Breach of Contract, and (3) Violation of Civil Code 1950.5(1).
On October 25, 2021, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint against Ariadna Jacob; Influences, Inc.; and Roes 1 -10 for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Waste; (3) Negligence; and (4) Conversion.
On September 14, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed opposing papers.
Legal Standard
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.” (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) “In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) When considering demurrers and judgment on the pleadings, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. (Id.) “In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Gami v. Mullikin Medical Ctr. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876.) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)¿¿¿
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC’S request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as MOOT.
Evidentiary Objections
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED.
Discussion
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC (“Levi Estates) filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking to strike the answer of Influence, Inc. (“Influences”) and requesting the entry of default as to Influences on the Cross-Complaint because its corporate status is suspended.
Influences asserts that it has taken steps to reinstate its corporate status.
On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change in Corporate Status stating that Influences’ corporate status is now in good standing with the California Secretary of State. Influences’ counsel also attached a declaration that included true and correct copies of printouts from the California Secretary of State webpage taken January 20, 2023, showing that Influences is both active and in good standing. (Lake Decl. ¶ 2.)
Since Influences’ corporate status is revived, all its prior actions are validated and Influences may remain as a party in this action. (See Peacock Hill Assn. v. Peacock Lagoon Constr. Co. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 369, 373.)
Based on the foregoing, Levi Estates’ Request for Judicial Notice and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as Moot.
Conclusion
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as MOOT.
Moving party to give notice.¿¿