Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings against all causes of action brought by Plaintiffs CAROLYN WELCH (“CAROLYN”) and BOBBY WELCH, III (“BOBBY III”) on the basis that those two Plaintiffs do not allege a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendants and so cannot support their participation in any of the first amended complaint’s thirteen alleged causes of action. Judicial Notice. The court may properly accept facts it may judicially notice or that cannot reasonably be controverted when ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.) Defendants request judicial notice of the first amended complaint (“FAC”) and the lease agreement between them, Rickie Welch, and Bobby Welch, II.
The court declines to take judicial notice of the FAC as it is already part of the record in this case. The court also declines to take judicial notice
Hearing Date
May 26, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings against all causes of action brought by Plaintiffs CAROLYN WELCH (“CAROLYN”) and BOBBY WELCH, III (“BOBBY III”) on the basis that those two Plaintiffs do not allege a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendants and so cannot support their participation in any of the first amended complaint’s thirteen alleged causes of action. Judicial Notice. The court may properly accept facts it may judicially notice or that cannot reasonably be controverted when ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.) Defendants request judicial notice of the first amended complaint (“FAC”) and the lease agreement between them, Rickie Welch, and Bobby Welch, II.
The court declines to take judicial notice of the FAC as it is already part of the record in this case. The court also declines to take judicial notice