Defendant Dan Shavolian?s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
Defendant?s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits 1 ? 8.? The request is denied as to Exhibit 9.? Evidence Code Section 452 permits judicial notice of records of any court of the state, but the proffered transcript, which is not a certified copy from the court, does not appear to be part of any official court record.? Defendant?s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Reply to Opposition to Motion is denied.? New evidence is not permitted on reply, as the opposing party does not have an opportunity to respond. (Jay v. Mahaffey?(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538.)
As an initial matter, a motion for judgment on the pleadings does not lie on grounds previously raised on demurrer absent a material change in applicable law.? (Code Civ. Proc.,?? 438, subd. (g)(1).)??Here, Defendant identifies no such change in the law.? The court need not revisit grounds on which it has already ruled.
In the instant Motion, Defendant?argues that: (1) Plaintiffs lack standing (Mot. at pp. 12-17); the guaranty is incorporated by reference and integrated into the entire operating agreement (Mot. at pp 17-18); and the New York court ruling and appellate opinion collaterally estop Plaintiffs? claims (Mot. at pp. 19-20).? Defendant previously raised the first two arguments in its Demurrer, which was overruled by this Court.? (See?Demurrer at pp. 5-10 [re Plaintiffs? lack of standing], 6-7 [guaranty is incorporated by reference into the entire operating agreement].)? In its demurrer, Defendant also argued that the New York court?s ruling on summary judgment collaterally estopped this action.? (Demurrer at pp. 9-10.)
Thus, this ruling addresses the sole ?new? issue: whether the opinion of the New York court collaterally estops Plaintiffs from claiming rights under the Guaranty.???The New York appellate court opinion expresses no opinion on the validity of the assignment of the Guaranty.? Specifically, the court noted that: ?[b]ecause neither the complaint nor the moving papers sought a declaration as to the validity of the assignment of the guaranties, and because that issue involves different questions and rights than at issue here, it was error for the [lower] court to grant that relief sua sponte.?? (See?RJN, Ex. 8 at pp. 51-52.) ?As such, Plaintiffs? claims are not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The Court notes that while Plaintiffs? cause of action survives a motion for judgment on the pleadings, this ruling does not consider the ultimate validity of the assignment of the rights under the written guaranty, which will be decided at the appropriate juncture.
Plaintiffs shall give notice of the ruling.