What is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Recent Rulings on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

BARCLAYS BANK VS. NGUYEN

The Plaintiff now has filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which also has not been opposed. The Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The court will sign the proposed order granting the motion and the proposed Judgment submitted by the Plaintiff. The courts of Contra Costa will close early on November 25, 2020 the date of the issuance of this tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WINSTON VS AKHOIAN

Before the court for this hearing are three motions, as follows: (1) Motion to be Relieved from Admissions, filed by defendant Abraham Akhoian (“Defendant”) on 9/14/20, as to the prior Order of 3/16/20 deeming certain RFAs admitted [“Motion 1” below]; (2) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJOP”), filed by Defendant on 9/9/20, as to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Rick Winston dba E.H.

  • Hearing

CARLOS ANTHONY LOPEZ VS THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

Failure to allege facts in the complaint demonstrating compliance with the prelitigation governmental claims presentation requirements subjects the complaint to a demurrer (or motion for judgment on the pleadings) for failure to state a cause of action. (State of Calif. v. Sup.Ct. (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239; see Alliance Financial v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION OF LAGUNA WOODS V. DICKINSON

On 8/10/20, the Court granted the individual Cross-Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

CAPITAL ONE BANK V VITALE

(UNOPPOSED) MOTION FOR JOP The unopposed motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted on the grounds that th complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; matters in request for admissio were ordered deemed admitted; and defendant does not state facts sufficient to constitute defense. (CA CCP sec. 438(c)(1)(A)) Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $4,606.81 principal plus $464.50 in costs = $5,071.31 Request for Judicial Notice 1.

  • Hearing

SU YANG, ET AL. VS JDW ASSOCIATION, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;, ET AL.

On October 5, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On October 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. On November 9, 2020, Defendants filed an Opposition. On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. Discussion MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND Code Civ. Proc.¿section¿473¿subd.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

GERLAND BURKETT VS 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, INC.

On October 15, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 438. Trial is set for March 9, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court to grant judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability causes of action because Plaintiff admitted that Defendant did negligently cause Plaintiff’s injuries.

  • Hearing

TURMEL WOODS VS CITY OF COMPTON, A MUNICIPALITY

Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “Motion”) as to each cause of action in the FAC and also argues in the Motion that Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims are deficient.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

And as our Supreme Court has stated: "Since 1994, motions for judgment on the pleadings have been authorized by statute [i.e., § 438]. Previously, they were allowed by common law. Generally, as such motions were, so they remain." {Gerawan bar to a common law mofion for judgment on the pleadings. Second, section 438 provides "[t]he court may upon its own motion grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings," and need not wait until the answer is filed and the time to demur expired. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

EVELYN LOZADA VS OGOM CHIJINDU

Rice (1) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Evelyn Lozada Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ogom Chijindu Ruling: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Lozada’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied. This matter was set for hearing on September 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS JAMES A STEWARTSON

Responding Party: None Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed. RULING The motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On January 17, 2020, plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a complaint against James A Stewartson for (1), (2) breach of contract, (3) for money lent, (4) for money paid, laid out, and expended, (5) open book account, and (6) account stated. On April 27, 2020, defendant (self-represented) filed an answer.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

AMANDA TULLER ET AL VS GOLDEN BEAR CAPITAL INC

On 2/24/20, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to all causes of action in the First Amended Complaint and granted Plaintiffs 30 days leave to amend and granted Plaintiffs’ request for leave to include a cause of action for professional negligence. (RJN, Ex. D). On 3/30/20, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint which contains causes of action for: (1) breach of contract (implied and oral); (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) professional negligence.

  • Hearing

ADAN JESUS RUIZ, ET AL. VS WILMINGTON ARMS HOUSING, LP

Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Discussion I. Legal Standard A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B). A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. Stoops v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PEGGYE MARTIN ET AL VS IBIERE SECK ET AL

On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff’s “Demurrer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” was denied. On February 24, 2020, trial was scheduled for November 24, 2020 in this action. On November 17, 2020, the final status conference was held in this action. At the final status conference, the court ordered Plaintiff to file an exhibit list, witness list and trial brief by November 20, 2020. The court also indicated that discovery remained closed, as the discovery cutoff had passed.

  • Hearing

BECK V. CATANZARITE, ET AL.

The court in the MFS Action never reached the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Furthermore, Defendants have proffered evidence that Plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from the MFS Action, because the claims against him were realleged in Mesa v. Probst (OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01064267), which was pending at the same time as the dismissal. As to the second element, Plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing that the MFS Action was brought without probable cause.

  • Hearing

LIU V. FAN, ET AL.

Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 674 (reversing granting of motion for judgment on the pleadings, addressing argument that contract was barred by section 43.5, stating that “adults who voluntarily live together and engage in sexual relations are nonetheless as competent as any other persons to contract respecting their earnings and property rights… [o]f course, they cannot lawfully contract to pay for the performance of sexual services, for such a contract is, in essence, an agreement for prostitution and unlawful

  • Hearing

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

Moreover, even if the objections had merit, the Court notes that the matter appears to be fully briefed (thus warranting an exercise of discretion to overlook any later service) and, to the extent that the present motion is labeled a "demurrer" it could be construed as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" to resolve any lateness issues – if there were any.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

Moreover, even if the objections had merit, the Court notes that the matter appears to be fully briefed (thus warranting an exercise of discretion to overlook any later service) and, to the extent that the present motion is labeled a "demurrer" it could be construed as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" to resolve any lateness issues – if there were any.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MOORS VS SPEED

Speed's present motion appears to be either a request for judgment on the pleadings or, after a fashion, a type of summary judgment/adjudication request – i.e. Ms. Speed is asking this Court to summarily resolve the partition question via motion rather than via trial.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MOORS VS SPEED

Speed's present motion appears to be either a request for judgment on the pleadings or, after a fashion, a type of summary judgment/adjudication request – i.e. Ms. Speed is asking this Court to summarily resolve the partition question via motion rather than via trial.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

Moreover, even if the objections had merit, the Court notes that the matter appears to be fully briefed (thus warranting an exercise of discretion to overlook any later service) and, to the extent that the present motion is labeled a "demurrer" it could be construed as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" to resolve any lateness issues – if there were any.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ZACHARY SMITH VS VIVKA GREY, ET AL.

Discussion Meet and Confer Per Code of Civil Procedure section 439 subdivision (a), before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings...” (CCP § 439(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

Moreover, even if the objections had merit, the Court notes that the matter appears to be fully briefed (thus warranting an exercise of discretion to overlook any later service) and, to the extent that the present motion is labeled a "demurrer" it could be construed as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" to resolve any lateness issues – if there were any.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DEAN HABEGGER VS DR. HENRY KUN

Defendants could just file a motion for judgment on the pleadings instead. Background The court denies defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice filed 10/7/20. The various versions of the complaint are in the court’s file. The court does not need to take judicial notice of them. Further, the court will review those complaints itself and draw its own conclusions rather than granting the other requests for judicial notice.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 348     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.