Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV15315, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15315    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporation Authority’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff Tieshia Washinton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Thomas Edward Ayala (“Ayala”) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporation Authority (“LACMTA”) for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se.

On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed the FAC, changing the cause of action to only motor vehicle negligence.

On October 26, 2021, LACMTA filed an answer.

On August 10, 2022, LACMTA filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to be heard on September 9, 2022

Trial is currently scheduled for October 20, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

LACMTA requests the Court grant judgment on the pleadings as there are no material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution.

LEGAL STANDARD

‘‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and [thus] attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]’  [Citation.]’  [Citation.]”  (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274.)  “In reviewing the motion, [the Court] deem[s] true all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and we may also consider judicially noticed matters.  [Citation.]”  (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.)

According to CCP §439, parties are required to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. “...The moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims. The party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is not subject to judgment, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any claims it is subject to judgment.” CCP §439(b).

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

“[A driver is] under a duty, both by statute and common law, to operate his vehicle without negligence so as to abstain from injuring any other person or his property.” (Bewley v. Riggs (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 188, 194.)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

LACMTA attempted to meet and confer on August 3, 2022, prior to filing this motion, satisfying this requirement.

Judgment on the Pleadings

Plaintiff’s FAC alleges that LACMTA was liable for motor vehicle negligence. On March 14, 2022, LACMTA served Plaintiff with a Request for Admissions; following a non-response, the Court granted LACMTA’s August 10, 2022, Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted. Some of the admissions deemed admitted included that LACMTA was not negligent in the subject incident, that LACMTA did not breach any duty to Plaintiff, that LACMTA’s employee did not cause the incident, that Plaintiff’s negligence was the only cause of the incident, and that Plaintiff did not sustain any damages as a result of the incident. The Court takes judicial notice of this ruling pursuant to Evidence Code §452(c) and (d).

As such, there is no basis to bring a motor vehicle claim—Plaintiff has admitted that there was no breach, causation or damages, all of which are essential to any sort of negligence claim. The Court grants the motion, without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporation Authority’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.