Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC03946, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**
Case Number: 20STLC03946 Hearing Date: April 24, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff State Farm
Automobile Insurance Co.
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
(CCP § 438, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff
State Farm’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to
amend.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice and file a proposed judgment along with a
memorandum of costs within ten (10) days of this order.
SERVICE:
[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule
3.1300) OK
[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,
1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None
filed as of April 20, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None
filed as of April 20, 2023. [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against Defendant Kyung Hee Kim for subrogation, stemming from an automobile
accident between Defendant and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile
insurance policy. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff compensated Insured for claimed
damages in the amount of $7,475.44 and filed the instant claim against
Defendant for allegedly causing the damages. (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)
On June 30, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer
to the Complaint.
On April 27, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to
Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in
the amount of $360.00, filed on March 16, 2022.
(4-27-22 Minute Order.)
On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (“Motion”) and Request for Judicial Notice. Plaintiff notes that the Motion is submitted on the moving
papers, and its representative will not appear at the hearing. (Mot. p. 2.)
On
February 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to
Continue Trial and continued the trial date to May 16, 2023. (2-27-23 Minute Order.)
No
opposition has been filed.
II.
Request for
Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
following documents:
1.
Defendant’s Answer the
Complaint, Exhibit 1;
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to
Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, Exhibit 2;
3.
This Court’s order
granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, on April 27,
2022, Exhibit 3.
According to Evidence Code § 452,
the Court may take judicial notice of matters that include records or rules of
another court and facts or propositions of common knowledge, among other
matters. Although it is not necessary to
take judicial notice of documents in the instant case, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits 1-3.
III.
Legal Standard
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 is confined to the face of
the pleading under attack and all facts alleged in the complaint must be
accepted as true.” (Hightower v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1995) 38
Cal.App.4th 853, 858.)
A plaintiff may move for judgment
on the pleadings on the ground that “the complaint states facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against the defendant and the answer does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(A).
Additionally, Code of Civil
Procedure § 439(a) states that “before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant
to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by
telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion
for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement
can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment
on the pleadings.” The moving party
“shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a
declaration” that either states that a meeting took place or that the
non-moving party did not respond to the request. Although
a determination that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not
grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings, that does not
mean the requirement can be wholly ignored.
(Code. Civ. Proc. § 439(a)(4).
IV.
Discussion
A.
Meet and Confer Requirement
Plaintiff’s counsel states that on May
6, 2022, prior to filing the instant Motion, she sent a meet and confer letter
to defense counsel. (McCammack Decl.;
Ex. 1.) Defense counsel has not responded
to the letter. (Ibid.)
The Court finds that the parties
have satisfied the requirement to meet and confer.
B.
Merits
Plaintiff, an insurer, asserts a single cause of action
seeking to recover damages of $7,475.44 arising from an alleged motor vehicle
accident that occurred on or about December 14, 2018, between Plaintiff’s
insured and Defendant Kim, as the driver of the vehicle involved. (Compl. pp. 1-3.) Plaintiff alleges it investigated its
insured’s claim, determined the claim was covered, and paid its insured $7,475.44 for the loss. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
“There are eight elements of an insurer's
cause of action for equitable subrogation: ‘[1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2]
the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not
primarily liable; [3] the
insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for
which the defendant is primarily liable; [4] the insurer has paid the claim of
its insured to protect its own interest and not as a volunteer; [5] the insured
has an existing, assignable cause of action against the defendant which the
insured could have asserted for its own benefit had it not been compensated for
its loss by the insurer; [6] the insurer has suffered damages caused by the act
or omission upon which the liability of the defendant depends; [7] justice
requires that the loss be entirely shifted from the insurer to the defendant,
whose equitable position is inferior to that of the insurer; and [8] the
insurer's damages are in a liquidated sum, generally the amount paid to the insured.’ [Citation.]” (Pulte Home Corporation v. CBR
Electric, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 216, 229.) (Italics in original.)
The Requests for Admission deemed
admitted against Defendant Kim contradict any denial in the Answer. Specifically, the admissions admit that (1)
Defendant was driving a motor vehicle at the time of the incident; (2)
Defendant “failed to drive with reasonable care;” (3) Defendant’s driving was
“the sole cause of the COLLISION with plaintiff’s INSURED VEHICLE;” (4) Defendant
was “at least 1% at fault in causing the COLLISION,” and (5) “100% at fault in
causing the COLLISION,” (6) as a result of the collision, the Insured incurred
damages (7) “of at least $7,475.44;” (8) that the insurer “has been damaged in
the amount of at least $7,475.44, 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;” and (10) “the
affirmative defenses [Defendant has] asserted in this matter lack merit and
evidentiary support.” (3-16-22 Reese
Decl. – Ex. A; 4-27-22 Minute Order.)
Plaintiff
argues it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because these admissions “remove
any issue raised by Defendant KYUNG HEE KIM under a general denial or any
affirmative defenses raised in the attached answer.” (Memorandum p. 3.)
No opposition has been submitted.
By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated
that the Complaint properly pleads a subrogation cause of action and that
Defendant made several judicial admissions by way of the admitted Requests for
Admission. The admissions establish the
facts upon which Plaintiff bases its Complaint and Defendant has not opposed
the Motion to demonstrate otherwise.
Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
GRANTED.
C.
Leave to Amend
After a judgment on the pleadings is granted, the same
standards apply in granting leave to amend as for demurrers and leave is routinely
granted. (See CCP §438(h); Virginia G. v. ABC Unified Sch.
Dist. (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 1848, 1852 [holding that when a motion
for judgment on the pleadings is granted, denial of leave to amend constitutes
an abuse of discretion if the pleading does not show on its face that it is
incapable of amendment].) In case of a
demurrer, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that
the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318).
When a plaintiff “has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his
cause of action is based,” the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity
to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not “be deprived of his right to
maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of
particulars.” (Reed v. Norman
(1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.) Accordingly, California law imposes the burden
on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the manner in which they can amend their
pleadings to state their claims against a defendant. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d
335, 349.)
If leave to amend is granted, the party against whom the
motion is granted must be given 30 days to file an amended pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(h)(2).)
Here, Defendant has not responded to
Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and has not filed any response to the
instant Motion to show that there is a reasonable possibility that an amendment
to the pleading will cure the defect. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings is granted without leave to amend.
V.
Conclusion & Order
For
the foregoing reasons,
Plaintiff
State Farm’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to
amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice and file a proposed judgment along with a memorandum of costs within ten (10) days of this order.