We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Marci R Tashjian, Et Al Vs. San Mateo Credit Union, Et Al

Case Last Refreshed: 1 month ago

San Mateo Credit Union, Tashjian, Marci R, Walters, Arthur G, filed a(n) Automobile - Torts case against Boardwalk Chrysler, Jk Commerce, Inc., San Mateo Credit Union, represented by Blute, Jonathan M., Katz, Deidre Cohen, in the jurisdiction of San Mateo County. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts Superior with Fineman, Nancy L. presiding.

Case Details for San Mateo Credit Union v. Boardwalk Chrysler , et al.

Judge

Fineman, Nancy L. Track Judge’s New Cases

Filing Date

August 24, 2021

Category

(22) Unlimited Auto

Last Refreshed

January 31, 2024

Practice Area

Torts

Filing Location

San Mateo County, CA

Matter Type

Automobile

Filing Court House

Superior

Case Outcome Type

Judgment

Parties for San Mateo Credit Union v. Boardwalk Chrysler , et al.

Plaintiffs

San Mateo Credit Union

Tashjian, Marci R

Walters, Arthur G

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Defendants

Boardwalk Chrysler

Jk Commerce, Inc.

San Mateo Credit Union

Attorneys for Defendants

Blute, Jonathan M.

Katz, Deidre Cohen

Other Parties

Bmcg Enterprises Inc. (Cross Defendant)

Moes 1 To 20, Inclusive (Cross Defendant)

Case Documents for San Mateo Credit Union v. Boardwalk Chrysler , et al.

Order to Show Cause

Date: February 22, 2023

Case Management Conference

Date: October 02, 2023

Proposed Order Received

Date: October 24, 2023

Case Events for San Mateo Credit Union v. Boardwalk Chrysler , et al.

Type Description
Docket Event
Docket Event 21_CIV_04536_Notice_of_Entry_of_Judgment
Docket Event 21_CIV_04536_Proposed_Judgment
Docket Event 21_CIV_04536_Notice_of_Entry_of_Order
Docket Event Order ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SAN MATEO CREDIT UNION'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SAN MATEO CREDIT UNION'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS--SIGNED BY JUDGE FINEMAN ON 12/28/2023
Docket Event ~CIV Minute Order - Motion Re: For Judgment on Pleadings 12/19/2023
Motion Re: For Judgment on Pleadings

Judge: Fineman, Nancy L.

Docket Event Party shall prepare formal order consistent w/order herein
Counsel for Defendant SAN MATEO CREDIT UNION
Docket Event Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:
DEFENDANT SAN MATEO CREDIT UNION'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS TENTATIVE RULING: The court GRANTS defendant San Mateo Credit Union unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. Defendant's notice of motion does not identify the location of the hearing, which is required. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 [the Notice "must specify" the location of the hearing].) The parties should be aware that the Hon. Nancy L. Fineman, Department 4 is located at the Central Courthouse, Department G, 800 North Humboldt St., San Mateo, CA 94401. The court provided this information to the parties through the tentative ruling for the April 4, 2023 hearing and the hearing's minutes. Defense counsel is ordered to contact plaintiff by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 18, 2023 to provide the proper location of the courthouse. Although the motion is unopposed, this court believes, especially when the issue is one of law "that the integrity of the judicial process requires ... [the court] to subject every motion to review before granting it." (California Judge's Benchbook: Civil Proceedings Before Trial 6.20 (Thomson Reuters Mar. 2022 update).) Therefore, the court has substantively reviewed the motion. The court grants defendant's request for judicial notice. The court "may take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached-in the documents such as orders, statements of decision, and judgments-but cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact." (Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 130, n. 7; Lindsey v. Conteh (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1296, 1302, n. 2 [granting request for judicial notice of parties' briefs and trial court minute order only as to the existence of the documents, not the truth of their contents.].) "A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by CCP [Code of Civil Procedure] 438..., the rules governing demurrers apply. [citations]" "Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial 7:275 (TRG June 2023 update).) "The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or be based on facts the court may judicially notice." (Id., at 7:292 [citing Code Civ. Proc., 438(d); Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734.) A. Statute of Limitations. Defendant's argument that the claims of fraud, relief under the Ralph Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress fails on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The pleading of "September 17, 2017" in the Original Complaint describes only (1) a date when Plaintiffs attended an auto sale, (2) a date of the "point of sale," and (3) a date when Plaintiffs were presented with a CARFAX document. (Original Complaint at 5:1-11.) That date, however, does not support a statute of limitations defense because that is not an allegation of when any cause of action accrued. A statute of limitations does not begin to run until the cause of action accrues, and a cause of action accrues "when all elements of the claim have occurred." (Piedmont Cap. Mgmt., L.L.C. v. McElfish (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 961, 968.) Typically, the last element to occur is damage. The neither the Original Complaint nor the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges when damage occurred. Therefore, the pleading does not allege when any statute of limitations began to run. Since the face of the FAC and the Original Complaint do not allege a date when any cause of action accrued, the statute of limitations argument does not support the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to any cause of action. Finally, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs discovered withdrawals from their SMCU account on January 14, 2020, and January 24, 2020. (FAC at 5:26-29.) Since Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2021, the only possible claims that would be time-barred would be those subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The FAC does not allege any such claims. B. Failure to State a Cause of Action The motion is granted in its entirety for failure to state any cause of action. 1. Fraud. The FAC does not allege any of the elements of fraud, nor does it state who made the allegedly fraudulent statements, or when, where, or in what manner the statements were made. Generally, such specificity requires pleading facts that "show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered." (Ibid.) Also, generally when pleading fraud against a corporate employer, the plaintiff must "allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written." (Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.) Less specificity, however, is required then the defendant "must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy. (Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 838; see also Committee On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 217.) Even reading the complaint liberally and with defendant having information, there are not sufficient facts to support this cause of action. 2. Breach of Contract. The FAC does not allege the terms of the contract, attach the contract, allege whether the contract was written or oral. Nor does it allege that Plaintiffs performed or were excused from performance or state how SMCU allegedly breached any contract. 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct (conduct so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in a civilized community) with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard to the probability of causing, emotional distress; and (2) as a result, plaintiff suffered extreme or severe emotional distress." (Berry v. Frazier (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1258, 1273.) The FAC does not allege any of these elements. Defendant's motion also attacks a claim for relief under the Ralph Act (Civ. Code 51.7). The FAC does not allege any claim under the Ralph Act or even mention it. Since the FAC supersedes the Original Complaint as the operative pleading, any references to the Ralph Act in the Original Complaint are not relevant. The court denies leave to amend. Although leave to amend is routinely granted, it is proper to deny amendment when the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of being amended. (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 7:129 (TRG June 2023 update).) Here, the court has already provided an opportunity to amend to file a second amended complaint, but plaintiffs failed to do so, which resulted in the dismissal of another defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2) and plaintiffs failed to file an opposition to this motion, suggesting that they do not have facts to amend. If plaintiffs seeks leave to amend, they should properly contest the tentative and appear at the hearing (via Zoom is acceptable) to provide facts that provide a reasonable possibility that they can state a cause of action. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for defendant San Mateo Credit Union shall prepare a written order consistent with the court's ruling for the court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Docket Event 21_CIV_04536_Proposed_Or_udgment_on_Pleadings
Docket Event 1st Time Extension granted for Filing of Stipulation to ADR
Courtesy until 12/22/2023 by HC.
See all events