DJCBP Corporation v. City of Baldwin Park
2:23-cv-00384
| C.D. Cal. | Sep 15, 2025Background
- This case involves DJCBP Corporation and David Ju against the City of Baldwin Park and several former city officials over claims including negligence, fraud, and inverse condemnation.
- Plaintiffs’ TAC asserts (1) mandamus and temporary injunction relief against the City; (2) §1983 inverse condemnation against individuals; (3) Monell liability against the City; (4) negligence, fraud, and declaratory relief claims; and (5) related state-law issues.
- The Court previously dismissed inverse condemnation and Monell claims with prejudice, and retained supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims; other claims were dismissed or stayed as appropriate.
- The City filed counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, fraud in the inducement, and unjust enrichment; Willoughby filed a cross-claim that was later resolved.
- The Scheduling Order set a dispositive motions deadline of February 20, 2025, and trial was scheduled for September 9, 2025; the August 29, 2025 Rule 12(c) motion was deemed untimely by the Court.
- Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion sought judgment on the pleadings on multiple grounds but was denied as untimely and on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ negligence claim establishes a duty and breach by the City | Tier One/Ju assert a duty owed by City | City contends no duty or breach stated | Denied; the issue is deemed moot due to timeliness ruling? |
| Whether plaintiffs plead fraud with required particularity under Rule 9(b) | Fraud allegations against individuals are sufficiently pled | Fraud claims lack specificity | Denied; motion denied on timeliness grounds, with merits unresolved? |
| Whether the DA bars plaintiffs’ claims under the Development Agreement | DA does not bar state-law claims | DA bars claims | Denied; the motion was untimely and merits not reached |
| Whether the Rule 12(c) motion was timely under the Scheduling Order | N/A | Filed timely per Rule 12(c) | Denied; motion is untimely under Scheduling Order |
| Whether the court should grant judgment on the pleadings given law-of-the-case and pleadings standards | Standard supports relief | Standard supports dismissal | Denied; motion untimely and not with merit on pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (context-specific plausibility requirement)
- Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012) (pleading must contain plausible claims)
- In re American Cont’l/ Lincoln Sav. & Loan Sec. Litig., 102 F.3d 1524 (9th Cir. 1996) (allowance of exhibits and judicial notice; standard on pleadings)
- In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999) (consideration of attached exhibits and judicial notice on motions)
- McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390 (9th Cir. 1996) (12(b)(6) / 12(c) analysis resemblance; plausibility)