Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/25/2021 at 01:09:36 (UTC).

DANIEL FORSTER, ET AL VS. CHARLES E. JANEKE, & DOES 1-10

Case Summary

On 11/22/2016 DANIEL FORSTER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CHARLES E JANEKE, DOES 1-10. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL J. CONVEY, THERESA M. TRABER and BERNIE C. LAFORTEZA. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4905

  • Filing Date:

    11/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHAEL J. CONVEY

THERESA M. TRABER

BERNIE C. LAFORTEZA

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross Defendants

FORSTER DANIEL

FORSTER ROBIN

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Appellants

JANEKE CHARLES E.

DOES 1-10

Not Classified By Court

DEX MEDIA INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

STONE STANLEY HAROLD

SMITH ROBERT F.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

GLAUDE LANIA

LABBAD ABRAHAM ANTOINE

Not Classified By Court Attorney

NOEL SHERYL D.

 

Court Documents

Cross-Complaint -

8/30/2018: Cross-Complaint -

Answer -

8/30/2018: Answer -

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

5/17/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Request for Dismissal

3/8/2021: Request for Dismissal

Case Management Statement

1/8/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF NO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS/ CROSS-DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 430.L0(E); AND DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT THEREO

7/18/2019: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF NO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS/ CROSS-DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 430.L0(E); AND DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT THEREO

Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANT CHARLES JANEKES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF NO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS/ CROSS-DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO C.C

7/18/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANT CHARLES JANEKES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF NO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS/ CROSS-DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO C.C

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

10/21/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

12/2/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil) - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL) NOA:1/9/2020

1/10/2020: Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil) - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL) NOA:1/9/2020

Notice of Limited Scope Representation

3/3/2020: Notice of Limited Scope Representation

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF 10/6/2020 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/28/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF 10/6/2020 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO STRIKE AND DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' LATE FILED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER CCP 435-437 & 581(F)(2

6/25/2018: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO STRIKE AND DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' LATE FILED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER CCP 435-437 & 581(F)(2

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-06-26 00:00:00

6/26/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-06-26 00:00:00

Opposition -

7/27/2018: Opposition -

Notice of Ruling -

8/6/2018: Notice of Ruling -

Minute Order - Minute Order (Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Under CCP 128.5)

11/6/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Under CCP 128.5)

Proof of Service by Mail

5/10/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

83 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Charles E. Janeke (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Lien; Filed by DEX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketAppellate Order Dismissing Appeal (NOA: 01/09/20 B303553); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Charles E. Janeke (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Charles E. Janeke (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Charles E. Janeke (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Charles E. Janeke (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department U, Bernie C. LaForteza, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department U, Bernie C. LaForteza, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
170 More Docket Entries
  • 03/17/2017
  • DocketNotice-Demurrer; Filed by Charles E. Janeke (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2017
  • DocketSupplement; Filed by Daniel Forster (Plaintiff); Robin Forster (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Charles E. Janeke (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2017
  • Docketat 00:00 AM in Department W; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Daniel Forster (Plaintiff); Robin Forster (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniel Forster (Plaintiff); Robin Forster (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Daniel Forster (Plaintiff); Robin Forster (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC104905    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: U

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT

DANIEL FORSTER and ROBIN FORSTER,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CHARLES JANEKE,

Defendant.

CHARLES JANEKE,

Cross-Complainant,

vs.

DANIEL FORSTER; ROBIN FORSTER; and DOES 11-20, inclusive,

Cross-Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) ) ) ) ) ) )

)

CASE NO: LC104905

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT JANEKE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Dept. U

8:30 a.m.

January 14, 2021

I. BACKGROUND

Daniel Forster (Daniel) and Robin Forster (Robin) (collectively, Plaintiffs) initiated this action on November 22, 2016 against Charles Janeke (Defendant). Plaintiffs’ operative second amended complaint (SAC) was filed on June 13, 2018.

On August 30, 2018, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs and Does 11 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) financial elder abuse; (2) breach of contract; (3) slander/cloud of title; and (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations.

On June 17, 2020, Defendant filed this motion for judgment as both a defendant and a cross-complainant. As a defendant, he moves on the grounds that Plaintiff’s SAC is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against him. As a cross-complainant, he moves on the grounds that Plaintiff’s answer to the cross-complaint is a general denial not allowed in response to a verified complaint.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. (Lance Camper Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198.) Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Ibid.Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) Both a demurrer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings accept as true all material factual allegations of the challenged pleading, unless contrary to law or to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677; Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 27.) On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may take judicial notice of something that cannot reasonably be controverted, even if it negates an express allegation of the pleading. (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468-469; Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549.) 

When plaintiff (or cross-complainant) is the moving party, the motion must be made on the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient 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(c)(1)(A).) A plaintiff cannot file a motion for judgment on the pleadings until the defendant has filed an answer and the time to demur has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(f).)

A motion by a defendant (or cross-defendant) can be made on the grounds that: (1) the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of one or more of the causes of action alleged or (2) the complaint, or any cause of action therein, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c).)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Meet & Confer Requirement

“Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a).) A declaration regarding meet and confer efforts must be filed with the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Id. at 439(a)(3).)   

There is no evidence Defendant has met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel about this motion. Nonetheless, the Court addresses the substance of Defendant’s motion.

B. SAC

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ SAC is uncertain and lacks the factual allegations necessary to constitute causes of action against Defendant. Rather than raising specific arguments about deficient allegation to support this motion, Defendant relies on the Court’s January 19, 2018 order sustaining a demurrer to the FAC and argues that, with the exception of attaching a document claimed to be the lease, Plaintiff failed to remedy the defects found by the Court in January 2018. While this may be an explanatory predicate for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendant utterly fails to identify or demonstrate any of the alleged defects in the SAC in his motion, apparently suggesting that the Court should make a comparison of the SAC to the prior minute order to suss out any inadequacies.

Plaintiffs make similarly unhelpful arguments. On August 9, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ SAC that raised the same deficiencies complained of here. Because the issue there (as here) was whether Plaintiffs had complied with the Court’s prior minute order, the Court overruled the demurrer on the ground that Defendant never filed the Notice of Ruling demonstrating that he had properly served Plaintiffs with the January 19, 2018 ruling that Plaintiffs were to use as a guide for amending their FAC.

Plaintiffs oppose this motion arguing that the Court already addressed Defendant’s contention by ruling on Defendant’s prior demurrer on August 9, 2019 and complain that Defendant is merely trying to harass them with this motion. This argument lacks force because all parties concede that the Court overruled the demurrer to the SAC because of Defendant’s failed notice and not because it held that Plaintiffs’ SAC was compliant with the prior ruling or otherwise lacking in deficiencies. There is no basis here for a ruling that Defendant could not attack the SAC by way of a motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Court never reached the substance of such a challenge.

That said, the motion actually filed by Defendant fails to assert any specific arguments attacking the allegations of the SAC and, thus, must be denied on that basis. While his prior demurrer to the FAC may have been sustained, Defendant has to do more to challenge the SAC than simply assert that it does not comply with the Court’s ruling on the first demurrer. Instead, Defendant must demonstrate why he is entitled to judgment in his favor based on the allegations of the SAC, whether by reference to its pleading defects or otherwise. His motion simply does not do so. As a result, Defendant’s challenge to Plaintiffs’ SAC must be rejected.

C. Plaintiffs’ Answer to Cross-Complaint

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ answer to his cross-complaint is a general denial that is not allowed in response to a verified complaint.

Plaintiffs oppose on the grounds that there is no evidence that Defendant’s cross-complaint is verified, thus, a general denial is appropriate. Even if there was evidence of verification, Defendant should have addressed this issue when he responded to the pleading.

In relevant part, Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d) provides:

If the complaint . . . is not verified, a general denial is sufficient but only puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint. If the complaint is verified . . . the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant.

Here, page seven of Defendant’s cross-complaint includes his verification attesting to the truth of the facts alleged. (Cross-Complaint, p. 7.) Plaintiffs’ answer is also verified and admits portions of the cross-complaint and denies others. Plaintiffs specifically indicate which paragraphs in the cross-complaint they deny and which they admit. Plaintiffs also identify the paragraphs as to which they do not have adequate knowledge to answer. Thus, Plaintiffs have not simply made a general denial of the entire cross-compliant, as Defendant contends. Plaintiffs also assert two affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs plead that Paragraphs 29 and 33 fail to state causes of action and that the remaining paragraphs allege claims that are barred by the statute of limitations for written contracts.

Despite Defendant’s contention, therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Answer because they have specifically denied and admitted portions of Defendant’s cross-complaint and advanced affirmative defenses, as they were required to do in response to a verified cross-complaint.

//

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reason, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ SAC and their answer to the cross-compliant is DENIED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s rulings.

DATED: January 14, 2021

_____________________

Hon. Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Dex Media, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer NOEL SHERYL D.