Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV34670, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34670    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff Carmeletta Mobley, in pro per (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Ross Dress for Less (“Defendant”) for damages after allegedly hitting her head on a metal shelf at Defendant’s store.  Defendant filed an answer on December 12, 2022.  

Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings based on the Request for Admissions that were deemed admitted against Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.)  Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.) 

When the moving party is a defendant, he must demonstrate either of the following exist:  

                                            i.The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.  

                                          ii.The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)-(ii).)   

“[I]n order for judicial notice to support a motion for judgment on the pleadings by negating an express allegation of the pleading, the notice must be of something that cannot reasonably be controverted…The same is true of evidentiary admissions or concessions.” (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.)   

MEET AND CONFER

A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.) Here, the Declaration of Charles F. Saacke does not set forth facts that he met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to filing this motion. Nevertheless, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 439(a)(4).)

JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court takes judicial notice of Defendant’s exhibit A, the Court’s November 20, 2023 ruling. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) However, the Court denies the request for judicial notice of exhibit B, Plaintiff’s responses to the request for admissions. To the extent Defendant argues exhibit B is contained in the Court’s record, the Court would take judicial notice of its existence but may not take judicial notice of the substance of the matters within.

DISCUSSION

            As an initial matter, even though this motion was brought within 30 days before trial, set for April 29, 2024, the Court will permit the motion.[1]

            Here, Defendant does not seek summary judgment, but rather seeks judgment on the pleadings based solely on the order deeming admitted the requests for admissions. However, this motion may only be based on the pleadings and matters judicially noticed. Here, Defendant does not argue that Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint fail to state a cause of action.

The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability. “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.) Therefore, to prevail on a claim for premises liability, Plaintiff must prove: (1) defendant owned or controlled the subject property; (2) defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; (3) plaintiff was harmed; and (4) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (See Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.) Here, Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleges she suffered injuries due to a negligent condition on Defendant’s property.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.