Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV20127 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

This is a subrogation action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in August 2020. Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) filed its Complaint against Defendant Robert Pena on May 28, 2021.

Plaintiff argues that the facts contained in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions which were deemed admitted and removed any general denial or affirmative defense raised in his answer. Plaintiff is thus entitled to judgment as prayed for in the Complaint.

Defendant’s counsel argues that he discovered Defendant was incarcerated and has not been able to locate or contact him even though he is now no longer incarcerated. Counsel argues that the Curt should deny the motion because Defendant will be prejudiced and precluded from presenting his defense whereas Plaintiff will not be prejudiced.

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.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

“[I]n order for judicial notice to support a motion for judgment on the pleadings by negating an express allegation of the pleading, the notice must be of something that cannot reasonably be controverted…The same is true of evidentiary admissions or concessions.” (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.)

A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.) However, a determination that the meet and confer process is insufficient does not constitute grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).)

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Defendant’s deemed admissions remove the affirmative defenses and general denials contained in Defendant’s answer. Plaintiff properly filed a meet and confer declaration stating the parties met and conferred and were not able to reach an informal resolution.

To sustain a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.

1. Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, you were driving a motor vehicle. (For purposes of these requests, the term INCIDENT refers to the accident upon which this action was based occurring on or about August 3, 2020 at or near 624 IVY STREET NEAR S PACIFIC GLENDALE, CA 91204.)

3. Admit that your driving was the sole cause of the COLLISION with plaintiff's INSURED VEHICLE. (For purposes of these requests, the term COLLISION refers to the motor vehicle accident which is the basis of the INCIDENT; the term INSURED VEHICLE refers to the other vehicle involved in the INCIDENT for which plaintiff is seeking to recover damages.)

6. Admit that as a result of the COLLISION, you caused the INSURED to incur damages. (For purposes of these requests, the term INSURED refers to the owner of the INSURED VEHICLE.)

8. Admit that plaintiff as the insurer for the INSURED has been damaged in the amount of at least $36,565.72, the amount which it paid its INSURED on the claim its INSURED made for his/her losses arising from INCIDENT plus any other uncovered losses the INSURED suffered and assigned to plaintiff.

Defendants’ deemed admissions were judicially noticed and may be considered part of Defendant’s Answer. The deemed admissions state that Defendant failed to drive with reasonable care, that his driving was the sole cause of the collision, and that the collision caused damages to the insured.

Defendant’s first, second, and third affirmative defenses allege that Plaintiff was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and that other persons were negligent and caused or contributed to the collision. These defenses are removed because Defendant’s deemed admissions state Defendant was the sole cause of the collision.

Defendant’s fourth affirmative defense states Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against Defendant. This defense is removed because the deemed admissions admit to the elements of negligence.

Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense states that Plaintiff lacks competence and therefore standing to bring suit in the absence of a conservator. This defense is removed because this is a subrogation action and Plaintiff, the insurer, has standing to sue. The answer appears to have been for a different wrongful death case.

Defendant’s remaining affirmative defenses are also removed because Defendant’s deemed admissions admit that the affirmative defenses lack merit and evidentiary support.

Defendant’s counsel requests a continuance on the grounds that he has been unable to locate Defendant after he was released to a reentry program in Los Angeles after being incarcerated. (Morales Decl., ¶¶4-7.) Defendant’s counsel requests 90 days to locate Defendant so that he can participate in his defense. (Id., ¶8.) However, Defendant fails to state in his opposition whether he will be filing any relief from the deemed admissions. Defendant did not oppose the June 16, 2022 motion to deem admissions. Defendant’s counsel provides no dates showing when he discovered Defendant had been released from incarceration.

The Court has already granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions and Defendant fails to show that a continuance would result in any changes to this motion. Defendant’s counsel has been attempting to locate Defendant since at least June 2022, when the Court granted the motion to deem admissions, and Defendant’s counsel has made no attempt to seek relief from the deemed admissions.