STEEVES VS THE
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
ORDER OF THE
PLEADINGS ON 1ST AMENDED
CVSW2105378
COMPLAINT BY DAVID JOHN
COMPANY OF MARY
OUR LADY
LAWRENCE STEEVES
Tentative Ruling:
The Motion is DENIED.
The judgment plaintiffs request is bigger than that to which he is entitled.
The judgment
sought would seek to give later purchasers of plaintiff’s house relief to which they are not
entitled, and it
would eliminate
the entire amendment
to
the CC&Rs
when
only
the
ban
on short-term rentals is being challenged.
Additionally, the Answer denies facts that are essential to plaintiff’s right to relief, such as
that
he
bought
a
house
in
the
subdivision
on
a
date
that
precedes
that
date
of
the
amendment plaintiff challenges. (See, e.g., FAC, ¶ 23; Answer, ¶ 23.) Because this is a
pleadings motion, “The trial court [must] accept this denial as true [, which] alone should
have
preclude[s] judgment
on
the pleadings.”
(People
ex rel.
Becerra
v. Superior
Court
(2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 486, 499; see also Ar