JHPDE Finance I, LLC v. Moreno
Case No: 19CV01558
Hearing Date: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

On March 22, 2019, plaintiff JHPDE Finance 1, LLC, (plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendant Carlos H. Moreno (“defendant”) alleging the following common counts: open book account, account stated, money had and received, money lent, and money paid. Plaintiff alleges that defendant entered into a credit card agreement with Citibank, N.A., defaulted, and presently owes $2,573.42, plus costs and fees. Plaintiff alleges it is the successor-in-interest to Citibank.

On May 3, 2019, defendant filed an answer on standard Judicial Council forms. He admitted all the statements in the complaint. In addition, he alleges: “I have been unable to work because of my disability as a result of a work incident. I also have been unable to receive my worker comp.” (Answer, ¶ 5.) In his prayer, he requests the court “give [him] time until I have an income to start repaying.” (Answer, ¶ 6.)

The matter before the court today is plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on May 7, 2019.

1. Meet and Confer Process

Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a) provides that 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 the judgment on the pleadings.” The Declaration of Sarkis S.

Karayan states that he called defendant on May 7, 2019 and that he “informed him of the motion hearing and his option to discuss settlement prior to the hearing.”

This is insufficient. “As part of the meet and confer process, the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(1).) This declaration does not support such a finding.

Moreover, the meet and confer telephone call occurred on May 7, 2019, the same date the motion was filed. This fails to satisfy the requirement that “(t)he parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(2).) Defendant had no opportunity to consider his position.

The court finds that the meet and confer process was not sufficient.

2. Merits

On the merits, this motion fails due to inadequate briefing.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, but is made after the time for a demurrer has expired and an answer has been filed. Except as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 438, the results governing general demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumann Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or be based on facts which the court may judicially notice. The pleading under attack – in this case, the answer – must be accepted as true; factual allegations are given liberal construction. (Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indem. Co. of American (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198.)

If the moving party is a plaintiff, the court must determine whether “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 438 (c)(1)(A).)1 Addressing the latter inquiry first, the court finds the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. The answer does not deny any allegation, plaintiff’s performance or an excuse for nonperformance, and/or defendant’s failure to perform, or the nature or amount of damages. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382.) The answer may raise a defense to enforcement of a judgment, but not to the underlying debt.

However, plaintiff has entirely ignored the remaining inquiry—whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is not mentioned in the brief, nor has any analysis been provided in support of any one of the common counts alleged. In the face of these omissions, the trial court has no obligation to undertake its own search of the record “backwards and forwards to try to figure out how the law applies to the facts” of the case. (See Huong Que,

Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409 (reviewing court is not obligated to undertake independent examination of record when appellant “‘has shirked his responsibility in this respect”’); see Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 52 (where appellant’s motion was supported by deficient memorandum, trial court was justified in denying the motion on procedural grounds).) California Rule of Court rule 3.11132 rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide. (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc., (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 927, 934.) The Court declines to undertake the analysis.

The court denies the motion without prejudice to its renewal. Any renewed motion must be properly briefed and supported by an adequate meet and confer declaration. All parties are directed to appear at the hearing.

1 The memorandum of points and authorities cites Code of Civil Procedure section 438(c)(3)(A) as the authority for this motion. That subdivision is inapposite. That subdivision governs the circumstance where the court on its own motion grants a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

2 “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (CRC rule 3.1113 (a).)