Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02318/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONARD DELDIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUNRISE EXPRESS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-2318 CKD

ORDER

Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. 

The matter was submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the documents in 

support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS 

FOLLOWS:

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings with respect to plaintiff Engel’s claim for 

loss of consortium. Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay 

the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. If, on 

a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the 

pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the 

motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed 

of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable 

opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion 

by Rule 56.

/////

Case 2:16-cv-02318-CKD Document 15 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate “when there are no issues of 

material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 3550 Stevens 

Creek Assocs. v. Barclays Bank, 915 F.2d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings, the court reviews the pleadings only. The allegations of the nonmoving party must be accepted as true. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 

896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 882 

(9th Cir. 2011). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is functionally identical to a motion to 

dismiss brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); the same legal standard applies. 

See Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011).

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that they are common-law husband and wife. They 

further allege that for over twenty-one years they have held themselves out as husband and wife, 

have children together, and have shared income and expenses throughout their relationship. ECF 

No. 1 at p. 11. Under California law,1common law marriage is not recognized. California 

Family Code § 300. As such, a loss of consortium claim for unmarried cohabitating couples 

cannot lie. See Elden v. Sheldon, 46 Cal. 3d 267, 275 (1988). The plain allegations of the 

complaint demonstrate that defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings on this claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for judgment on the 

pleadings with respect to plaintiff Engel’s claim for loss of consortium (ECF No. 8) is granted.

Dated: January 11, 2017

4 deldio2318.jop

 

1

 This action was removed from state court on the basis of diversity and therefore California law 

governs the state law claims.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02318-CKD Document 15 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2