U.S. Bank v. Abadi CA2/6

DISCUSSION

The Abadis contend the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings. We disagree.

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2 A motion for judgment on the pleadings serves the same function as a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146.) A motion may be brought where “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.” (§ 438, subd. (c)(1)(A); see also Adjustment Corp. v. Hollywood Hardware & Paint Co. (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 566, 569-570 [judgment on the pleadings is proper where the answer “fails to deny any of the material allegations of the complaint”].) In reviewing an order granting judgment on the pleadings, we independently review the sufficiency of the pleading and affirm if any grounds raised in the motion is well taken, even if we disagree with the trial court’s rationale. (Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1, 13.)2 Here, as U.S. Bank correctly argued in its motion, the amended answers…