Case Name: Georgette Purnell v. Thomas Jones, et al.
Case No.: 18CV325377

I. Background

This is a race discrimination action brought by plaintiff Georgette Purnell (“Plaintiff”) against the owners of a restaurant, defendants Thomas Jones and Rebecca Jones (collectively “Defendants”).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff, who is African-American, went to Defendants’ restaurant, the Patio Bar, in late 2016. While the Patio Bar has a policy that it does not discriminate against customers based on their race or other classifications, Plaintiff was harassed and threatened by the manager and employees because of her race.

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) violation of the Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500, et seq.; and (4) violation of the Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

Defendants each filed a general denial in response.

Plaintiff presently moves for judgment on the pleadings, seeking judgment in her favor based on the purported inadequacy of Defendants’ denials. Her motion is accompanied by a request for judicial notice.

II. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of two court records from this case, namely her complaint and “[D]efendants [sic] general denial.” (RJN, p. 1.) She only attached defendant Rebecca Jones’ general denial to her request; it appears she mistakenly believes Ms. Jones’ general denial was filed by both Defendants, but they each filed a separate general denial.

Plaintiff does not specify the particular statutory provision she relies upon for her request. Presumably, she intended to rely on Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), which permits judicial notice of court records. While the documents in questions are generally proper subjects for judicial notice, it is not necessary to take judicial notice of them here. In considering a plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court must consider the defendant’s answer and the plaintiff’s complaint. (MacIsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 813.) Since the Court must review the pleadings in evaluating Plaintiff’s motion, judicial notice of the complaint and general denials is unnecessary. (See Paul v. Patton (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1091, fn. 1.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

III. Merits of the Motion

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings on the ground her complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and Defendants’ answers do not state sufficient facts to constitute a defense. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).)
Plaintiff argues the Defendants’ general denials are vague a
nd conclusory, and therefore do not “even come near to stating any type of defense to [her] verified complaint.” (Mem. of Pts. & Auth., p. 3.)

To prevail on her motion, Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendants’ general denials, on their face, do not controvert a material issue in her complaint or state a defense. (See Patterson v. Pacific Indemnity Co. (1931) 119 Cal.App. 203, 207.) “It is elementary that a plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the answer presents any issue as to the material allegations of the complaint, or if it sets up affirmative matter constituting a defense. [Citation.]” (Grant v. Aerodraulics Co. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 68, 72.) Here, as observed by Defendants, Plaintiff only concludes that their general denials are insufficient and does not substantiate her position with analysis or legal authority.

Moreover, general denials are proper in response to an unverified complaint (Code Civ. Pro., § 431.30, subd. (d)), and automatically place all material allegations in the complaint at issue (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 383). Although Plaintiff refers to her complaint as verified, it is not. She did not include a verification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 446, subdivision (a). Therefore, Defendants’ general denials are proper and controvert all of Plaintiff’s material allegations.

Consequently, Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings and her motion is DENIED.