Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 10:03:38 (UTC).

WENDE KUMARA & JAMES GREENWALD VS PENMAR MANAGEMENT..; ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/16/2017 WENDE KUMARA JAMES GREENWALD filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PENMAR MANAGEMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2384

  • Filing Date:

    10/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KUMARA WENDE AN INDIVIDUAL

GREENWALD JAMES AN INDIVIDUAL

KUMARA WENDE

GREENWALD JAMES

Defendants

GREEN ROBERT KEITH AN INDIVIDUAL

DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

PENMAR MANAGEMENT & FINANCE INC. ...

MORAN JIMMY AN INDIVIDUAL

GREEN ROBERT

PENMAR MANAGEMENT & FINANCE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MALLORI R. FRADKIN ESQ.

FRADKIN MALLORI ROSE

Defendant Attorneys

LEGIS LAW PC (JAMES GOLDMAN)

KOZICH S. DAVID

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Management Conference

10/16/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons

10/16/2017: Summons

Answer

11/13/2017: Answer

Legacy Document

2/23/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

2/23/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

2/23/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

2/23/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Case Management Statement

3/5/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

3/5/2018: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document

3/20/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Ruling

3/27/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice

8/23/2018: Notice

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/26/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Certificate of Mailing for

1/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

1/4/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/15/2019: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

1/15/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Substitution of Attorney

1/25/2019: Substitution of Attorney

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:34 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • Hearingat 08:32 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order The court is in receipt of Peremptory Challenge ...) of 01/15/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Penmar Management & Finance, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); Robert Green (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Wende Kumara (Plaintiff); James Greenwald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072384    Hearing Date: October 20, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 9

PROCEEDINGS

Wende Kumara, et al. v. Penmar Management & Finance, Inc., et al.

YC072384

  1. Penmar Management & Finance, Inc., et al.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Penmar Management & Finance, Inc., et al.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.

    Meet and Confer

    Defendants set forth a declaration in sufficient compliance with CCP § 439(a). (Decl. Freddie V. Vega, ¶¶ 3-10.)

    Request for Judicial Notice

    The request for judicial notice of the Complaint is granted pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452(d). The request for judicial notice of the Apartment Management Agreement is denied.

    Objections

    The objections to the declaration of Robert Keith Green are sustained.

    Objections to paragraphs 3 and 4 to the declaration of Freddie Vega is overruled. Objections to paragraphs 11 to 31 are sustained.

    Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

    A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired.  Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).  Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply.  Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1012.  “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.”  Rolfe v. Cal. Transp. Comm’n (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 239, 242; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).  “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.”  Civic Partners Stockton, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013.  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.”  Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.

    Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire Complaint. The Court notes that Defendants did not specify the grounds upon which the motion is based. For example, CCP 438(b)(i) and (ii) specify two grounds upon which the motion may be based: “(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.”

    Here, Defendants did not specify whether the motion is directed simply to the entire pleading or as to specific causes of action. In any event, the Court notes that the motion is essentially based on two grounds: First, the motion appears to argue that the first cause of action for Breach of Contract fails to state sufficient facts based on the statute of limitations. Second, the motion is premised upon on an alleged failure by Plaintiff to indemnify Defendants. This second argument appears to be an attempt to adjudicate an unpled indemnity cause of action against Plaintiff.

    Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 16, 2017. Plaintiffs alleged the following facts: Plaintiffs hired Defendants to manage their property; Defendants breached the contract when they negligently hired themselves and/or unlicensed contractors to perform construction on the building, thus resulting in extensive property damage. Plaintiffs alleged the following causes of action. 1. Breach of Contract; 2. Unfair Business Practices (Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.); 3. Negligence; 4. Constructive Fraud; 5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 6. Disgorgement of Money Paid to Unlicensed Contactor (California Business and Professions Code §§ 7031(b)).

    As noted above, the only specific cause of action to which the motion is directed is as to the first cause of action. “The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.

    Here, Defendants’ motion is based on the contention that the cause of action is barred by the four-year statute of limitation of CCP § 337. Defendants essentially argue that the breach occurred in 2011 and the Complaint was filed more than 4 years later in 2017. However, there are no allegations in the Complaint or factual matters upon which the Court may properly take judicial notice that reveal a bar based on the statute of limitations. The Complaint, in fact, alleges that Plaintiffs did not discover the alleged breach until 2016. (Complaint, ¶ 21.) Defendants’ arguments concerning a bar based on the statute of limitations are premised upon factual matters outside the scope of the pleadings and are not proper for adjudication with a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings.

    The second argument – that Plaintiffs are required to indemnify Defendants – is not directed specifically to any cause of action in the Complaint. Thus, on that basis alone the motion can be denied. However, even here, Defendants are attempting to premise this motion upon an evaluation of the agreement between the parties which was not attached to the Complaint. This is not a proper matter upon which the Court may take judicial notice. The Court notes that Defendants also supplemented their arguments with extensive declaration testimony from both defendant Green and counsel Mr. Vega. None of these statements are admissible for purposes of this motion other than Mr. Vega’s brief testimony concerning his attempts to meet and confer prior to filing this motion.

    Defendants’ motion is based on extrinsic facts outside the scope of the pleadings. “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.”  Civic Partners Stockton, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013.  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.”  Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313. Factual issues as to whether Plaintiffs discovered the alleged breach in 2011, as well as whether the contract requires Plaintiffs to indemnify Defendants, are not proper for adjudication with a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

    Thus, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire Complaint is denied.

    Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PENAMR MANAGEMENT & FINANCE INC is a litigant