DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV-05851·merced·Civil·Contract
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

Two Jinn, Inc. vs. Jimmy Luna, et al.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Hearing date
Jul 22, 2026
Department
9
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffTwo Jinn, Inc.
DefendantJimmy Luna

Ruling

627 W. 21st Street, Merced

Wednesday, July 22, 2026 10:00 a.m.

The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear.

2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying CourtCall (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.

Case No. Title / Description

24CV-05851 Two Jinn, Inc. vs. Jimmy Luna, et al.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings by plaintiff Two Jinn, Inc. is GRANTED without leave to amend the answer. The Court takes judicial notice of its order filed on September 11, 2025, granting Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming true requests for admission and genuineness of documents that were propounded on Defendant. The Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract and that Defendant’s deemed admissions negate any denials and defenses asserted in Defendant’s answer. (See Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549.)

Judgment shall be entered forthwith in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to costs as prevailing party. The Court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment submitted with the moving papers.

The case management conference scheduled for August 7, 2026, is vacated.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share