2012-00125720-CL-CL

White & Whitley Group LLC vs. May Yang

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Filed By: Miele, Kenneth J.

*** If oral argument is requested, it will take place on Friday, October 25, 2013 at
9:00 a.m. ***

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

Moving counsel is admonished because the notice of motion does not provide notice
of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not
comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

This is a collection action. Plaintiff contends that by virtue of the Court’s 3/26/2013
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 several reasons.

First, defendant Yang’s motion to be relieved from the 3/26/2013 order deeming
plaintiff’s requests for admissions admitted is unopposed and the Court has issued a
tentative ruling granting that motion. Second, plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (found on Page 6 of plaintiff’s moving
papers) is denied because it fails to comply with CRC Rules 3.1113(l) and 3.1306(c).

Third, 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.

Fourth, the Court’s order on 3/26/2013 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
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 and the present motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied.

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

Item 13 2012-00125720-CL-CL

White & Whitley Group LLC vs. May Yang

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to be Relieved from Deemed Admissions

Filed By: Yang, May

*** If oral argument is requested, it will take place on Friday, October 25, 2013 at
9:00 a.m. ***

Defendant Yang’s motion to be relieved from the 3/26/2013 order deeming plaintiff’s
requests for admissions admitted is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED, as follows.

The Court notes that plaintiff did not file any opposition, which is construed as a
concession of the merits of defendant’s motion for relief. Therefore, defendant shall be
relieved from the Court’s 3/26/2013 order deeming plaintiff’s requests for admissions
admitted and defendant’s proposed responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions
(which responses are attached to defendant’s moving papers) are hereby deemed
served on plaintiff.

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