2012-00134535-CL-CL

Baker Recovery Services vs. Walter Aguilar

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Filed By: Trejo, Juana

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is UNOPPOSED but is DENIED, as
follows.

Moving counsel is admonished for because the notice of motion fails to provide the
correct address for Dept. 54 and because the moving papers fail to comply with CRC
Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

This is a collection action. Plaintiff contends that by virtue of the Court’s 7/26/2013
order deeming admitted plaintiff’s requests for admissions, defendant has no valid
defense to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint which is otherwise sufficient to state a
valid cause of action against defendant. Thus, plaintiff insists it is therefore entitled to
judgment on the pleadings. However, plaintiff is incorrect for at least three reasons.

First, plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (found on Page 3 of the moving papers) is
denied because it fails to comply with CRC Rules 3.1113(l) and 3.1306(c).

Second, even if plaintiff’s request for judicial notice were granted, judicial notice would
be limited to the existence of plaintiff’s prior motion and would not extend to its
contents. (See, e.g., Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th
112, 120-121; Bach v. McNelis (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865 [“There exists a
mistaken notion that this means taking judicial notice of the existence of facts asserted
in every document of a court file, including pleadings and affidavits. … A court may
take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only take
judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and judgments .” (Emphasis added).]) Thus, while the
Court may take judicial notice as to the existence of the prior motion, the Court does
not take judicial notice of the specific, individual requests for admissions contained in
or attached to that prior motion which plaintiff now contends entitle it to judgment as a
matter of law. Third, the Court’s order on 7/26/2013 merely states that the motion to deem admitted
“is UNOPPOSED and will be GRANTED unless, prior to the hearing, Defendant…has
served responses in substantial compliance with [Code of Civil Procedure]
§2033.220.” (Emphasis added.) However, there is in the present record nothing this
Court can take judicial notice of which affirmatively establishes that defendant actually
failed to provide before the hearing on the earlier motion responses which substantially
complied with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220. Whether defendant did or did not
timely provide responses in this case can only be established by extrinsic evidence but
such evidence cannot, by definition, be considered in connection with a motion for
judgment on the pleadings since it, like a demurrer, is limited to consideration of those
facts alleged in the complaint itself and those for which judicial notice is properly
granted.

For all these reasons, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiff is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law based solely on the current pleadings and matters judicially noticeable.
Therefore, the present motion for judgment on the pleadings must be and hereby is
denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)