This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/12/2021 at 14:43:02 (UTC).

JOSE GABRERA VS EDUARDO RAMOS

Case Summary

On 04/11/2019 JOSE GABRERA filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against EDUARDO RAMOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3551

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

GABRERA JOSE

Gardena, CA 90247

CABRERA JOSE

Defendant

RAMOS EDUARDO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

GERAGOS MATTHEW J.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

5/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

5/20/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

4/1/2021: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

12/9/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

12/10/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)]

12/10/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)]

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

12/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/5/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/11/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/24/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Answer - Answer

5/24/2019: Answer - Answer

Complaint - Complaint

4/11/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/11/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4/11/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/11/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

4/11/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Eduardo Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings scheduled for 05/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 05/20/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 05/20/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings scheduled for 05/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • DocketMotion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Filed by: Eduardo Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Matthew Jay Geragos (Attorney); As to: Eduardo Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)]; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Matthew J. Geragos (Attorney): Middle Name changed from Jay to J.

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Jose Gabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jose Gabrera (Plaintiff); As to: Eduardo Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Filed By: Jose Gabrera (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 04/11/2019; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/14/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jose Gabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03551    Hearing Date: May 20, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Eduardo Ramos

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Eduardo Ramos’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 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 May 18, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 18, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Gabrera (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed an action alleging breach of contract and common count causes of action against Defendant Eduardo Ramos (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer, in pro per, on May 24, 2019.

Defendant filed notice that he was being represented by attorney Matthew Geragos on December 9, 2020.

A non-jury trial was scheduled for December 10, 2020. On that date, the Court found the case was not ready to proceed to trial and continued the trial to August 16, 2021. (12/10/20 Minute Order.)

On April 1, 2021, Defendant 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 defendant, he must demonstrate either of the following exist:

(i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.

(ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(a)(B)(i)-(ii).)

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

Defendant’s Motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439. (Mot., Geragos Decl., ¶ 1, Exh. A.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitation and for this reason, the Motion should be granted in its entirety. (Mot., pp. 4-5.) “A pleading which on its face is barred by the statute of limitations does not state a viable cause of action and is subject to judgment on the pleadings.” (Hunt v. County of Shasta (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 432, 440.)

A. First Cause of Action – Breach of Oral Contract

“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.) “The elements of a breach of oral contract are the same as those for breach of a written contract. [Citations.]” (Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 437, 453.) The statute of limitations for breach of an oral contract is two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 339.)

As to the first cause of action, Plaintiff’s form Complaint alleges the following: (1) that, pursuant to an oral contract, Plaintiff worked with Defendant from June 2014 through November 2014; (2) that Defendant offered Plaintiff $400.00 per week for 8 hours of work per day; (3) that Plaintiff instead worked 12 hours per day, resulting in 4 hours of daily overtime; and (4) that in total, Plaintiff worked 480 hours of overtime amounting to $19,380.00. (Compl., ¶ BC-1.)

It appears the date of breach occurred, at the latest, on or around November 2014, when Plaintiff allegedly stopped working with Defendant. Because this action was filed over four years after Defendant’s alleged failure to compensate Plaintiff pursuant to their oral agreement, it is barred by the 2-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 339.) Notably, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition demonstrating otherwise.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s allegations could also support a wage and hour lawsuit against Defendant. However, wage and hour lawsuits have a statute of limitations of three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338.) Thus, any wage and hour claims would also be barred.

B. Second Cause of Action – Common Counts

“A common count is not a specific cause of action, however; rather, it is a simplified form of pleading normally used to aver the existence of various forms of monetary indebtedness…[Citations.] When a common count is used as an alternative way of seeking the same recovery demanded in a specific cause of action, and is based on the same facts, the common count is demurrable if the cause of action is demurrable. [Citations]” (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379-395 [affirming dismissal of a common counts cause of action, reasoning that a common count must “stand or fall” with the specific cause of action”].) “Where the “plaintiff is not entitled to recover under one count in a complaint wherein all the facts upon which his demand are specifically pleaded, it is proper to sustain a demurrer to a common count set forth in the complaint, the recovery under which is obviously based on the set of facts specifically pleaded in the other count. [Citations.]” (Jones v. Daly (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 500, 510.)

Plaintiff’s form Complaint alleges the following: (1) Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff within the last four years; (2) that Defendant had and received money for the use and benefit of Plaintiff; (3) that money was paid out, laid out, and expended to or for Defendant and Defendant’s special instance and request, and (4) that $19,380.00 is the reasonable value due to Plaintiff for labor, services, and materials rendered at the special instance and request of Defendant and for which Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff, which remains unpaid despite Plaintiff’s demand. (Compl., ¶¶ CC-1, 2.)

Plaintiff’s second cause of action seeks to recover the same amount from Defendant as the first cause of action, $19,380.00 for labor and services. Thus, although Plaintiff’s form Complaint checks off the box stating that Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff within the last four years, it is clear from the identical damages sought he seeks to recover for the same 2014 injury alleged in the breach of contract cause of action, i.e., that Defendant did not pay Plaintiff $19,380.00 in wages. Plaintiff did not file an opposition demonstrating otherwise. Because this common count cause of action is based on the same injury, which occurred over four years ago, it is also time-barred.

For the reasons discussed, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

IV. Conclusion & Order

Defendant Eduardo Ramos’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GERAGOS MATTHEW J