Tentative Ruling

Judge Pauline Maxwell
Department 6 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Barclays Bank Delaware vs Yolanda Marquez
Case No: 19CV03330
Hearing Date: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Judgment on the Pleadings

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted, without leave to amend. Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $9,772.04. Plaintiff may obtain its prevailing party costs by timely filing a Memorandum of Costs.

Background: This is a limited jurisdiction collections matter, in which plaintiff seeks to recover $9,722.04 in charges incurred by defendant on a credit account she had with plaintiff. The complaint was filed on June 26, 2019, alleging common counts causes of action. Defendant filed a General Denial on July 26, 2019. On July 30, 2019, plaintiff served Requests for Admissions on defendant, seeking to have her admit or deny all of the material elements of plaintiff’s complaint. When defendant failed to timely respond to the request, plaintiff allowed her an additional 10 day period within which to respond, but she did not do so. On September 25, 2019, plaintiff filed and served a motion for deemed admissions. The Court granted the motion on October 30, 2019.

The matters deemed admitted by defendant include that she opened the account with plaintiff; that she received a document from plaintiff that set forth the terms of the account; that defendant made purchases and payments on the account; that defendant failed to make required payments on the account as they became due; that defendant last made a payment on the account on July 4, 2018; that defendant owes plaintiff $9,772.04; that plaintiff provided defendant with billing statements for the sums owed on the account; that at the time defendant received the billing statements, she did not object regarding any amount reflected on those statements; that the agreement defendant entered into with plaintiff provided for the payment of court costs in the event of suit; and that defendant has no defense to this action.

Plaintiff now seeks judgment on the pleadings, based upon defendant’s deemed admissions. The motion sets forth authority allowing admissions to be considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings where, as here, the admissions cannot be reasonably controverted. (Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.) Judgment on the pleadings tests whether or not the pleadings support the cause if they are true; this test can be completed with judicial notice of evidentiary admissions. (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern National Insurance Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.)

Plaintiff concludes that since defendant has been deemed to have admitted all material facts supporting plaintiff’s complaint, there are no controverted material facts, and judgment on the pleadings should be granted in plaintiff’s favor and against defendant in the amounts sought in the complaint. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the amount of $10,251.49, consisting of the principal amount of $9,772.04, plus court costs totaling $479.45 (consisting of the $225 filing fee, $74.45 service fee, and $180 in motion fees for the deemed admissions and judgment on the pleadings motions).

Plaintiff’s motion was properly accompanied by a declaration attesting to its compliance with the pre-filing meet and confer requirements imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 439 upon parties seeking to file motions for judgments on the pleadings.

ANALYSIS: The motion is granted, without leave to amend. Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $9,772.04. Plaintiff may obtain its prevailing party costs by timely filing a Memorandum of Costs.

Code of Civil Procedure section 438(b)(1) authorizes a party to move for judgment on the pleadings. Pursuant to subdivision (c)(1)(A), if the moving party is a plaintiff, the motion must be made on the basis that 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. Just as is true with a demurrer, the grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any manner of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).) Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities. Pursuant to Pang v. Beverly Hospital, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989-990, the matters properly considered include judicially noticeable admissions or concessions of a party.

As a result, in determining plaintiff’s motion, the Court considers the allegations of the complaint and answer, along with the judicially noticeable matters which this Court has previously deemed admitted.

Common counts causes of action, such as those which form the basis for plaintiff’s complaint against defendant, have few elements, and those elements are set forth in the Common Counts attachment to plaintiff’s Judicial Council form complaint. A common count alleges in substance that the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in a certain stated sum, for some consideration (i.e., on an open book account, on an account stated in writing between plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed that defendant was indebted to plaintiff, for money lent by plaintiff to defendant at defendant’s request, among others), and that no part of the sum has been paid. These are the only essential allegations of a common counts claim. (See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.)

The causes of action are properly used where, as here, a defendant has defaulted on a credit card obligation by failing to make payments due. While plaintiff’s complaint alleges four different common counts causes of action, it need only establish entitlement to judgment on one of the common counts, in order to prevail on its motion.

Plaintiff alleges that, within the last four years (i.e., within the applicable statute of limitations), defendant became indebted to plaintiff because an account was stated in writing by and between plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed that defendant was indebted to plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that $9,772.04 remains unpaid despite plaintiff’s demand.

Defendant answered with a general denial of the allegations, and asserted affirmative defenses. However, after defendant failed to respond to requests for admissions served upon her by plaintiff, this Court granted plaintiff’s motion to have the matters deemed admitted. Because those admissions were perfected into a court order of which the Court may take judicial notice, and are not merely generic discovery admissions, the deemed admissions may be considered in ruling on this motion. The admitted matters include acknowledgements that defendant had a credit account with plaintiff, that she received periodic statements regarding the account, that as of 6/26/19 a balance of $9,772.04 was owed, that no payments have been made since that date.

The allegations of the complaint, taken in conjunction with the deemed admissions made by defendant, are sufficient to entitle plaintiff to judgment against defendant in the principal amount of $9,772.04. Because the motion is resolved in part based upon defendant’s admissions, no amendment by defendant could alter this conclusion. As a result, the motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted, without leave to amend, and Judgment shall be entered against defendant and in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $9,772.04. Because the amounts sought by plaintiff in costs are not matters of which the court can take judicial notice, plaintiff must timely file a Memorandum of Costs in order to seek those costs.