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

NGUYEN VS. TURBO

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Moving Party: Defendant Bernard Turbow (esa Bernard Turbo) Responding Party: None (would be Plaintiff in pro per Vinh Huu Nguyen) Ruling: Defendant Bernard Turbow, M.D.’s unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Complaint of Plaintiff Vinh Huu Nguyen is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(B).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS MICHAEL V SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

ANDREW COHEN VS DENNIS J GILBERT, ET AL.

Where the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is “a novel question almost certain to be tested in an appellate court, the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” Id. at 281. Defendant’s futility arguments attack the validity of the proposed causes of action and amendments.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NICOLE MAYS VS MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to set aside the default by Metu Ogike are set for November 4 and 5, 2020. Moving parties to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WANG VS. WONG

Next, Defendant contends that judgment on the pleadings should be granted as to the 3rd cause of action for equitable lien because the facts of this case have no application to an equitable lien theory against the Property in favor of Plaintiffs. “In general, equity will create a lien on property where this is necessary to accomplish substantial justice and protect creditors.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Where the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is “a novel question almost certain to be tested in an appellate court, the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” Id. at 281. Defendant’s futility arguments attack the validity of the proposed causes of action and amendments.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

“An issue may be submitted and determined on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment . . . [,] a motion for directed verdict, or their equivalents, as well as on a judgment entered on a verdict. A determination may be based on a failure of pleading or of proof as well as on the sustaining of the burden of proof.” (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 226 [citations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SABAHI VS CENTURY

“[T]he preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceeding.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048. However, leave to amend can be denied where it is clear that the proposed amendment is deficient. California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

“An issue may be submitted and determined on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment . . . [,] a motion for directed verdict, or their equivalents, as well as on a judgment entered on a verdict. A determination may be based on a failure of pleading or of proof as well as on the sustaining of the burden of proof.” (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 226 [citations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM VS AL MIJARES, ET AL.

On June 19, 2017, the court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the declaratory relief claims, declaring that OCERS has lawful authority to determine the amount of accrued liabilities owed by the Department and that the Department has a mandatory and ministerial obligation to pay them. Pet. ¶8, Ex. A. The court entered judgment on the Department's and OCERS' competing claims for declaratory relief. Pet. ¶9, Ex. B.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS LLC VS. WARD

("Plaintiff") for judgment on the pleadings against Defendants GREGORY WARD and FATIMA JIMENEZ ("Defendants"), is GRANTED. The Court notes that Defendants appear to have asserted the defense of the statute of limitations in their General Denial. ROA # 9. If this were the only ground on which Plaintiff relied, the Motion would be denied; however, Plaintiff's Motion is also supported by the Court's order deeming Plaintiff's requests for Admissions to be admitted. ROA # 38, 40.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS LLC VS. WARD

("Plaintiff") for judgment on the pleadings against Defendants GREGORY WARD and FATIMA JIMENEZ ("Defendants"), is GRANTED. The Court notes that Defendants appear to have asserted the defense of the statute of limitations in their General Denial. ROA # 9. If this were the only ground on which Plaintiff relied, the Motion would be denied; however, Plaintiff's Motion is also supported by the Court's order deeming Plaintiff's requests for Admissions to be admitted. ROA # 38, 40.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

CELLA V. BRIGGS

Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048, states, “As Justice Kaufman has noted, even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.’ [Citation.]”

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

“[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.’ (Citation omitted.)” (Id.) The motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. A stand-alone copy of the Second Amended Complaint is to be filed today, and is deemed to be served as of the date of this order. Defendants to respond within 30 days.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KESTER V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Court finds that the County’s motion on this ground is really a motion for judgment on the pleadings testing the sufficiency of the pleadings. While the County argues that Plaintiffs delayed in alleging these statutes, the County too could have resolved the insufficiency in the pleadings at an earlier stage by demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings. Granting Plaintiffs leave to amend here is proper. (Hejmadi v. Amfac, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 525, 536.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

US REAL ESTATE CREDIT HOLDINGS III-A, LP VS SCOTT EISNER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STUART RUBIN CHILDREN'S TRUST, ET AL.

Where the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is “a novel question almost certain to be tested in an appellate court, the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” Id. at 281. There is no trial date. The action is less than a year old. Defendants fail to demonstrate prejudice if the amendment were allowed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMAVARA INC VS DUBA

Stated another way, "in order for judicial notice to support a motion for judgment on the pleadings by negating an express allegation of the pleading, the notice must be of something that cannot reasonably be controverted." Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468. The request for judicial notice is denied. "The existence of a contract between private parties cannot be established by judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h)." Gould v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. V. BECKY PEARSON

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Defendant’s answer raises evidentiary issues sufficient to constitute a defense. Parties to appear.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

SA RECYCLING, LLC VS TRI-STATE EMPLOYMENT, INC.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by moving party Defendant Commerce Temporary Staffing Services LLC dba Pirate (here, “MP”) as to the Third Cause of Action (for Fraud) in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend. As a threshold matter, the Third Cause of Action (“COA”) in the FAC does not appear to assert any claims as to MP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

On February 4, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fifth through eleventh causes of action. On February 14, 2019, Kollider Industries, LLC filed a first amended cross-complaint against Joel Paschal for declaratory relief. On April 9, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KORB VS. ROMERO

HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY RICHARD E. KORB * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (MJOP) is granted in part and conditionally denied in part. Specifically, the motion is granted as to all causes of action other than the third, for fraudulent inducement. However, the motion is denied as to fraudulent inducement, unless plaintiff is willing to drop his request for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JONES VS. TZEN-WEN

HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AGAINST GUY TZEN-WEN FILED BY JEFFREY M. JONES, SHANNON B. JONES * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the cross-complaint is moot. The Cross- Complaint has been dismissed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

On February 4, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fifth through eleventh causes of action. On February 14, 2019, Kollider Industries, LLC filed a first amended cross-complaint against Joel Paschal for declaratory relief. On April 9, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JUDY RODRIGUES V. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS

Motion: by Defendant Save Mart Supermarket for judgment on the pleadings re the Fourth Amended Complaint, causes of action four and six Tentative Ruling: To grant all Requests for Judicial Notice (Evid. Code § 450 et. seq.). To deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Explanation: The standard of review in a motion for judgment on the pleadings is well settled. The motion is confined to the face of the pleading under attack, and all facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVELYN LOZADA VS OGOM CHIJINDU

Meet and Confer Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 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 if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 338     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.