Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00010, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00010    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

On January 3, 2023, Cesar Hilario Prado (‘Prado”) & Daniel Morales (“Morales) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against Frank Johnny Moreno (Defendant) in connection with an alleged motor vehicle accident. Defendant has answered and demanded jury trial. Plaintiffs were previously represented by counsel, however a motion to be relieved was granted on May 19, 2023.

On August 4, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses from Plaintiff and to deem requests for admissions (“RFA”) matters admitted.  

Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs have filed no opposition.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE:

Defendant requests the Court grant judicial notice of the following:

1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint in this action filed on January 3, 2023.

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

3. Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded on Plaintiffs.

4. Defendant’s motion for an order deeming Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded on Plaintiffs admitted.

5. The Court’s Minute Order granting Defendant’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff’ Responses to written discovery, including deeming Requests for Admissions admitted.

6. The Notice of Ruling on August 4, 2023.

A court may take judicial notice of the “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state ....” (Evid. Code, § 452 (d).) Thus, unquestionably, a “court may judicially notice its own records and proceedings in the same case.” (San Francisco v. Carraro (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 509, 527 [internal citations omitted].) Pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A defendant may bring a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings where the court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (C.C.P. § 438(c)(1)(B).) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) “Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.” (Id.)

“In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (C.C.P. § 452; see also Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) “When a court evaluates a complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable inferences from the facts pled.” (Duval v. Board of Tr. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.) “In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)

II.                 MERITS

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not state a cause of action for general negligence.

In order to state a claim for negligence, Plaintiffs must allege the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

Defendant argues the allegations of injury in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ admissions such that the claim of general negligence cannot be sustained. 

“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.” (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 604-05)

The Court has taken judicial notice that on August 4, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the requests served on Plaintiff. Accordingly, the truth of the matters in Defendant’s RFA were deemed admitted.

Pursuant to this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs have admitted as true Defendant’s Request for Admission No. 1, that Plaintiffs incurred no injury as a result of the incident. (RJN Exh. E, RFA No. 1.) Plaintiffs further admitted as true that they suffered no future medical care or expenses as a result of the incident. (Id., RFA No. 3.) Plaintiffs also admitted they do not have any ongoing pain as a result of the subject incident. (Id., RFA No. 12.)

Absent the filing of a motion to withdraw admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300(a), Plaintiffs’ admissions here cannot reasonably be controverted. Plaintiffs’ admissions stand at odds with their allegations of injury necessary to sustain their cause of action for negligence. Given these admissions, the Court sees no way in which Plaintiffs could amend their pleading to cure this defect. Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Frank Johnny Moreno’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings came on regularly for hearing on November 17, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: November 17, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles