Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Civil Procedure section 386.6; Hood v. Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 81-82.)
Case management conference remains on calendar for 7/6/26.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
213 Rodriguez vs. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on Parker 2/20/26 by Plaintiff Steven Lee Rodriguez (Plaintiff), is DENIED.
The Motion was not validly served on Defendant Connie Doris Parker (Parker). The proof of service reflects service by email alone, but the record does not reflect that Parker, an unrepresented party, consented to receive electronic service. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(c)(2).)
To the extent that this Motion seeks to strike the Answer as defective, a motion to strike would have been the proper means to do so. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 435.) But if treated as a motion to strike, this Motion is untimely. (Code of Civil Procedure section 435(b)(1).) Nor has Plaintiff shown here that relief is warranted under Code of Civil Procedure section 438(c)(1)(A) in any event. The Motion is therefore DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 76) is GRANTED as to the existence of the record presented as Ex. 1 under Ev. Code section 452(d). The Request is otherwise DENIED, as the relevance of those documents here is not shown. (Superior Court v. County of Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 59, fn. 7.)
The court continues the 7/6/26 CMC and OSC to 11/2/26 at 1:30pm in Dept. C24.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”