Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV48933, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48933    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.

 Defendant/Cross-Complainant Levi Estates, LLC filed a reply on October 18, 2022.

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.¿¿