Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV02900, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 24PSCV02900    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT ERIC JOHNSON AND SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is CONTINUED for Plaintiff Counsel’s failure to meet and confer as required by CCP Section 435.5. Should the meet and confer effort be successful, the court requests the parties to file any stipulation at least five (5) court days prior to the continued hearing date.

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 8/1/23.

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff Cyrus Rodriguez filed suit against Defendants Eric Johnson and Schneider National Carriers, Inc (“SNC”). (collectively, “Defendants”) for: (1) Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence.

On January 13, 2025, Defendants filed their answer. That same day, Defendants filed this motion.

On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition.

On March 20, 2025, Defendants filed their reply.

Discussion

Defendants seek to strike certain allegations regarding entrustment of the vehicle the grounds that SNC in its Answer expressly admitted to course and scope as to its employee driver, and therefore accepts vicarious liability should any be found against its employee driver. (Answer, ¶1-2.) Because of these admissions, any independent cause of action for negligence against SNC is subsumed within Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence. (Motion p. 2, citing Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 853; Baglieri v. City of San Francisco (2011) 2011 WL 62224.)

Here, the court cannot reach the merits as Plaintiff’s Counsel’s failed to meet and confer.

In fact, in the meet and confer letter, in exchange for Plaintiff amending the complaint to strike the foregoing allegations, Defendants stated that they would enter into a stipulation admitting that Johnson was acting in the course and scope of his work relationship with SNC and therefore accepts vicarious liability should liability be found against Johnson.

Conclusion

Based thereon, the hearing is continued for the parties to engage in meet and confer efforts. Should the meet and confer effort be successful, the court requests the parties to file any stipulation at least five court days prior to the continued hearing date.