Neelima Naidu et al vs Deepika Jain et al

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 25, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 17CV311946 YCS Investments, Motion for Attorney’s Fees Incurred in Appeal No. H051381 Inc. vs County of OFF CALENDAR. On June 11, 2026, Moving party/ The County of Santa Clara Santa Clara filed a notice of withdrawal of this motion that was accompanied by a proof of service on that same day. LINE 2 21CV376417 Long Chen et al vs Motion to Set Asude Default/ Judgment John Ly et al Scroll down to Line 2 for Tentative Ruling. LINES 22CV397661 Shirley Long et al vs Motion to Enforce Settlement 3-4 Barbara Kalman et On December 17, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the al settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Plaintiff filed opposition papers. On February 3, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to section 664.6. Defendants filed opposition papers. Parties are ordered to meet-and-confer about the motions and discuss whether parties can reach a stipulation on terms and narrow the scope. Parties are to file a joint statement updating the court by August 31, 2026. The motions are CONTINUED to September 3, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1. LINE 5 24CV429210 Neelima Naidu et al Motion Judgment on the Pleadings vs Deepika Jain et al Scroll down to Line 5 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 6 24CV454827 American Express Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjunction National Bank vs Scroll down to Line 6 for Tentative Ruling. Abhisek Roy LINES 25CV473100 AB Landscaping, Demurrer (Line # 7) and Motion to Strike (Line #8) 7-8 Inc. vs Andrew J. Scroll down to Lines 7-8 for Tentative Ruling. Fry, et al LINE 9 25CV477635 Mid-Century Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogoatires and Insurance Company Request for Sanctions vs Justin Collins Scroll down to Line 9 for Tentative Ruling.

V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the December 6, 2023 judgments in favor of Plaintiff Long Chen and Dan Zhu and against Defendant Asian Square is GRANTED.

The defendant’s request in their opposition for discovery on issues raised in this motion is DENIED without prejudice as the issue is not before the Court.

The Court will prepare the formal order.

Calendar Line # 5 Case Name Neelima Naidu et al vs Deepika Jain et al Case No. 24CV429210 Motion Judgment on the Pleadings Before the Court is defendants Carroll & Company and Pamela Jean Carroll-Gardiner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against plaintiffs Neelima Naidu, Prashanth Naidu, and Deepika Jain DDS and Neelima Naidu DDS, Inc.’s first amended complaint. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, the court issues its tentative ruling as follows. I. BACKGROUND This is an action arising from the sale of the dental practice Deepika Jain DDS and Neelima Naidu DDC, Inc. (“Blossom Hill Dental Center”).

According to the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), Defendants Carroll & Company and Pamela Jean Carroll-Gardiner (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) were required by an escrow settlement statement between the buyer and seller of Blossom Hill Dental Center to keep a contingency hold-back of $50,000.00. (FAC, ¶ 27). Moving Defendants were also required to pay the contingency hold-back to plaintiff Neelima Naidu within 90 days or upon the seller’s showing that all financial obligations were met. (Id. at ¶ 28). Moving Defendants failed to do so. (Id. at ¶ 31).

The FAC alleges two causes of action against Moving Defendants: (1) breach of written contract II; and (2) declaratory relief. Specifically, the FAC alleges that Moving Defendants breached their written instructions from the escrow settlement statement. (FAC, ¶ 32). And Plaintiff Neelima Naidu (“Naidu”) now seeks a judicial determination of her entitlement to the $50,000 and an order requiring the Moving Defendants to pay her with said funds. (Id. at ¶ 57).

On June 11, 2026, Moving Defendants filed the present motion for judgment on the pleadings to the entire complaint. Plaintiff filed a timely written opposition.

II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438(f), a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. Under a Code of Civil Procedure section 438(c), a motion by a defendant may be made on the grounds that (1) the court “lacks jurisdiction of the subject of one or more of the causes of action alleged” or (2) the complaint or cross-complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code of Civ.

Proc., § 438(c)). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings is akin to a general demurrer; it tests the

sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action.” (Wise v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738).

Code of Civil Procedure section 438(e) sets forth a timeline for statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings, which must be made within 30 days of the date the action was initially set for trial, unless otherwise provided by the Court. However, this only applies to the statutory basis for the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438.) Caselaw after the creation of that statute still recognizes grounds for a common law motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [recognizing that the motion may be made “at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself”]; see also Cordova v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 89, 109 [summary judgment motion treated as a common law motion for judgment on the pleadings]; Tarin v. Lind (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 395 [addressing merits of non-statutory motion]).

III. ANALYSIS Moving Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings of Plaintiff’s entire FAC. (Notice, p. 1:1-3). Moving Defendants, however, only argue that the breach of contract cause of action fails to state sufficient facts. (Motion, pp. 5-8). Moving Defendants make no argument challenging the declaratory relief cause of action.

As with a demurrer challenging an entire pleading, a motion for judgment on the pleading directed to an entire pleading fails if any cause of action is properly stated. (See Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 29, 36 [trial court’s sustention of demurrer to entire pleading reversed on ground that a cause of action was stated]; see also Shook v. Pearson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 348 [a demurrer which attacks entire pleading should be overruled if one of the counts therein is not vulnerable to the objection.]).

Given that Moving Defendants brings this motion challenging the FAC in its entirety and that Moving Defendants fail to bring any substantive argument challenging the declaratory relief cause of action, the Court DENIES Moving Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

// // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //

9