Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV20263, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20263    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Ma C. Alejandra Del Castillo Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Kohl’s, Inc. (“Defendant”), erroneously sued and served as Kohl’s Corporation, for damages Plaintiff sustained after allegedly falling as a result of a dangerous condition at Defendant’s property.  The complaint alleges causes of action for premises liability and negligence against Defendant.

At this time, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s complaint.  Defendant asserts that because its request for admissions (“RFAs”), set two, were deemed admitted against Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot prevail on her claims against Defendant.  In particular, Defendant argues that as a result of the order deeming its RFAs admitted, Plaintiff has admitted that Defendant was not negligent, that a dangerous condition did not exist, and that Plaintiff was not harmed.  The motion is unopposed.      

2. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

            A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (C.C.P. §438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]”  (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.)  “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs 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. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).)  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).) 

                        a. Meet and Confer

CCP § 439(a) provides that “Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  Section 439 also details the requirements for the conference and the declaration that is to be filed concerning the same.  

Defendant has sufficiently met and conferred prior to the hearing on this matter.  (Mot Supp. Tsao Meet and Confer Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

            b. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice be taken of (1) Plaintiff’s complaint filed in this action, (2) the September 26, 2022 order deeming Defendant’s RFAs, set two, admitted by Plaintiff, and (3) notice of the ruling regarding Defendant’s motion to deem RFAs admitted filed in this matter on October 4, 2022. 

Evidence Code § 452(d) provides the court may take judicial notice of “Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.”  “[A] complaint's allegations may be disregarded when they conflict with judicially noticed discovery responses…,” subject to judges' interpretations of the nature and extent of any discovery admissions.  (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 83.)  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.”  (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.)

In this case, Defendant’s request as to each item is unopposed and granted.  Further, the Court on its own motion takes judicial notice of the records and filings in this action, including Defendant’s motion to deem RFAs, set two, admitted.   

c. Analysis

            “ ‘The elements of a negligence cause of action are the existence of a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.  [Citation.] The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.’ [Citation.]”  (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) 

            Here, the complaint alleges that when Plaintiff was walking on Defendant’s property, “she fell to the ground as a result of a dangerous and defective condition and flooring of the subject premises.”  (Compl. ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff asserts claims of premises liability and negligence against Defendant as a result of the incident.  However, the RFAs deemed admitted against Plaintiff show that Plaintiff admits that Defendant was not negligent in its use, maintenance, or operation of the property.  (Mot. Tsao Decl. Exh. 2.)  Further, Plaintiff admitted that Defendant was not negligent in relation to the incident, and that a dangerous and/or defective condition did not exist at the property at the time of the incident.  Additionally, Plaintiff admitted that Defendant did not cause the incident, that Plaintiff was not harmed, and that Defendant’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s alleged harm.  (Ibid.)  The admissions establish that Plaintiff cannot prove her claims for negligence and premises liability against Defendant.  Consequently, Plaintiff’s complaint fails as a matter of law. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.  The burden is on Plaintiff to show in what manner he or she can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.)  In this case, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion or otherwise request leave to amend the complaint.  Accordingly, there is no showing as to how Plaintiff can cure the complaint to state a claim against Defendant, especially in light of the above admissions. 

Therefore, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend.  The complaint against Defendant is ordered dismissed.      

            Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of December 2022