Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
facts (Defendants' alleged Labor Code violations) and are inherently inseparable from the arbitrable claims against the signatory defendant. Equitable Estoppel is therefore applicable hereto to make Plaintiff's claims against the non-signatory Defendants subject to arbitration. In the absence of any substantively unconscionable provisions here, the Court finds that the arbitration agreement is enforceable and no severance is required. Civil Code Sec. 1670.5; Ramirez v Charter Communications, supra; 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is hereby granted. Plaintiff's individual claims are hereby compelled to arbitration, Plaintiff's putative class claims are dismissed, and this matter is stayed pending the conclusion of said arbitration. 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3; Civ Proc. Code Sec. 1281.4; Adolph v Uber Techs Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5 th 1104.
Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order by July 24, 2026, conforming to this ruling.
CV-25-008440 - VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs MORALES, SYLVIA - Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - GRANTED, unopposed.
The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is whether, 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. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 438(c)(1)(A); Apple Annie, LLC v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. (2022) 82 Cal. App. 5th 919; Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal. 5th 734, 758-759.
Based on the pleadings filed herein, Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant's Answer, the Moving Papers with supporting declaration, and Defendant's failure to oppose this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Civil Procedure Code Sec. 438 (c)(1)(A).
Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the pleadings is hereby granted for the sum of $2, 997.60. The referenced Civil Code Sec.Sec. 2983.4 and 1717 do not support the requested costs. Claimed costs of $397.60 are therefore denied. Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order no later than July 23, 2026, that conforms to the Court's ruling.
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?”
CV-26-001460 - SNYDER, GLORIA vs RAMOS, COREY - Defendant's Demurrer - MOOT.
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was not filed and served on or before the date Plaintiff's Opposition to the demurrer was due: i.e. July 2, 2026. Plaintiff's Counsel's declaration attests to service of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on Defendant's Counsel prior to the date said First Amended Complaint was due and to a failure to file said Frist Amended Complaint with the Court prior to said deadline. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 472 (a).
To the extent that Plaintiff timely served Defendant's Counsel with said First Amended Complaint but mistakenly failed to timely serve same with the court, and that Defendant does not oppose the untimely filing with the Court, the Court considers Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint properly filed and finds Defendant's demurrer moot.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***