Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV01213, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01213    Hearing Date: November 6, 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

            Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP (“Defendant”) now moves for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiff Amanda Pham’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint.

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 Mark A. Johnson, Defendant’s counsel, states the following: “On October 3, 2024, I sent Plaintiff a letter via FedEx Standard Overnight mail and requested that she meet and confer with me prior to noon on October 10, 2024.  Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the October 3, 2024 correspondence. Receiving no response to the meet and confer letter I called Plaintiff on October 10, 2024 and left a voice mail following up on the October 3, 2024 correspondence. As of the filing of this Motion, Defendant’s counsel as not received a response to this meet and confer request.” (Johnson Decl. ¶ 11-13.) Therefore, Defendant properly attempted to meet and confer.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

“[A] pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless. In this regard the court passing upon the question of the demurrer may look to affidavits filed on behalf of plaintiff, and the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories, [Citation] as well as to the plaintiff's response to request for admissions.” (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.)

“The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court. The hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of affidavits, declarations, depositions, and other such material which was filed on behalf of the adverse party and which purports to contradict the allegations and contentions of the plaintiff.” (Del E. Webb Corp., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at 604-05; see Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485 [“It is true that a court may take judicial notice of a party's admissions or concessions, but only in cases where the admission ‘can not reasonably be controverted,’ such as in answers to interrogatories or requests for admission, or in affidavits and declarations filed on the party's behalf.”]; see also St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775 [“Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through (Request for Admission) discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence.”].)

Based on the authorities above, the request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s deemed admitted Request for Admissions, Set One, is granted.

DISCUSSION

On May 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved, effective upon filing proof of service of the order on Plaintiff. The proof of service was filed on May 9, 2024. Plaintiff is currently self-represented.  

Here, Plaintiff alleges injuries under negligence and premises liability causes of action after Defendant’s security guard opened a door which sliced Plaintiff’s achilles tendon. (Complaint ¶ 14-15.)

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: (1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of that duty; and (3) harm to the plaintiff caused by that breach. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142.) The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)  

On August 19, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted its Request for Admissions, Set One, served on Plaintiff. (Min. Order, 8/19/24.) As a result, in the Request for Admissions (“RFA”), Plaintiff has admitted, among other things, that Defendant did not breach a duty owed to her (RFA 2); that no agent or employee of Defendant opened the doors that caused her injury (RFA 3); that Defendant did not own, maintain, control, lease, or operate the subject premises (RFA 4-8); and that no act or omission by Defendant caused her injury (RFA 10).

In line with the authorities above, these matters cannot be reasonable controverted and are inconsistent with the allegations within Plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and therefore fails to show that she can reasonably amend the pleadings. Therefore, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

At the hearing on this motion, Defendant shall also advise the Court whether it is moving to dismiss its cross-complaint with prejudice, or promptly file such a request.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend.

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