FINANCIAL PARTNERS CREDIT UNION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS JAMIE BROWN

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC07765 Hearing Date: August 25, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 20, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 20, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Jaime Brown (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges eight (8) causes of action based on two written agreements between the parties. Defendant filed an Answer on October 14, 2020, in pro per.

Plaintiff filed a motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted on February 10, 2021, which was granted on March 30. (3/30/21 Minute Order.)

On April 7, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

II. Legal Standard

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

When the moving party is a plaintiff, the motion may be made on the grounds that the complaint states sufficient facts 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 Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).)

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff moves for a judgment on the pleadings largely based on the Requests for Admission that were deemed admitted on March 30, 202. (Mot., pp. 3-4.) However, Plaintiff did not request judicial notice of these discovery requests or the related order, properly or otherwise. Nor is the Motion accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.

Further, Plaintiff did not discuss the elements of each of the 8 causes of action alleged against Defendant, or how the elements of each of those causes of action are satisfied by the deemed admissions. Instead, Plaintiff simply concludes there are no material controverted facts. (Mot., p. 5.)

Rather than deny the Motion in its entirety, Court will CONTINUE this hearing and allow Plaintiff an opportunity to correct these errors.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC07765    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., March 30, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Financial Partners Credit Union v. Brown COMPL. FILED: 09-14-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC07765 DISC C/O: 02-12-22

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 02-27-22

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 26, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 26, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Jaime Brown (“Defendant”). Defendant filed a general denial on October 14, 2020, in pro per.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Matters Admitted (the “Motion”) on February 10, 2021. No opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, on November 10, 2020 via regular mail. (Mot., Elder Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Although not statutorily required, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a letter regarding the missing responses on January 6, 2021. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. B.) As of the date this Motion was filed, Defendant had not served any responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Financial Partners Credit Union’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.