Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV38202, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38202    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Frank Ruvalcaba (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Zhen Yu Li (“Defendant”) purporting to allege causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.  Plaintiff filed the complaint on Judicial Council form PLD-PI-001.  At item 10 on the form, Plaintiff checked boxes to indicate that causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence were attached to the complaint; however, there are no attachments with any causes of action or facts submitted with the complaint. 

At this time, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the complaint arguing that the complaint in its entirety is barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions.  Defendant provides Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff concerning the issues in the motion, but the parties were unable to resolve the issues presented herein.  The motion is unopposed.  

2. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

a. MJOP Standard

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).) 

b. Analysis

Defendant asserts that this case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 27, 2018.  Defendant provides that Plaintiff originally filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCV09477 on March 9, 2020, seemingly for the same claims at issue in this action.  Defendant states that Case No. 20STCV09477 was dismissed without prejudice on September 7, 2021, for lack of prosecution and that Plaintiff never sought relief from this dismissal.  According to Defendant, Plaintiff then re-filed the same case on October 15, 2021, in this matter, which was more than three years after the accident occurred.  Defendant contends that the complaint was thus filed after the statute of limitations, and any tolling created by Judicial Council Emergency Rule 9, expired, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred as a result. 

CCP § 335.1 provides that the statute of limitations for “[a]n action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another” is two years.  However, as with a general demurrer, in ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court is limited to the four corners of the complaint and any matters that can be judicially noticed.  (Cloud, 67 Cal.App.4th at 999.)  While the complaint states that causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence are attached, (Compl. at p.3, ¶ 10), there are no factual allegations in the complaint to suggest that this matter concerns a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 27, 2018. 

Moreover, Defendant does not request that the Court take judicial notice of any of the exhibits attached to the motion.  Nonetheless, even if the Court on its own motion took judicial notice of the complaint filed in Case No. 20STCV09477, there are no facts alleged in the complaint for Case No. 20STCV09477 to suggest that it arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 27, 2018.  (Mot. Exh. A.)  Accordingly, the Court cannot determine based on the pleadings and judicially noticeable evidence that this action and Case No. 20STCV09477 arise out of the same motor vehicle accident, or that this matter concerns an accident that occurred on July 27, 2018. 

The complaint, however, on its face, fails to state a claim against Defendant.  Plaintiff did not attach any cause of action form to the complaint, and there are otherwise no factual allegations in the complaint regarding the claims being made against Defendant, including when the subject accident occurred. 

The Judicial Council pleading forms have simplified the art of pleading, and have made the task of drafting much easier. Nevertheless, in some cases more is required than merely placing an “X” in a box. [Citation.] “Adoption of Official Forms for the most common civil actions has not changed the statutory requirement that the complaint contain 'facts constituting the cause of action.' ” [Citation.] Thus, in order to be demurrer-proof, a form “complaint must contain whatever ultimate facts are essential to state a cause of action under existing statutes or case law.” [Citation.]

(People ex rel. Dep't of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484.) 

            The complaint, therefore, fails to state any cause of action against Defendant.  Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. 

            The burden is on Plaintiff to show in what manner 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, and thus, does not request leave to amend or make any showing as to how the complaint can be cured to state a claim against Defendant.

            The motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend.

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 24^th day of August 2022