Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC05999, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC05999     Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    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.

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 August 31, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 31, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Melissa Mailhot (“Melissa”) and Nicole Mailhot (“Nicole”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile accident between Defendant Melissa Mailhot and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy.  (Compl. ¶ 6.)  Defendant Nicole Mailhot is allegedly the “registered owner, bailee or other person who gained possession and/or control of the vehicle.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff compensated Insured for claimed damages in the amount of $15,596.42 and filed the instant action against Defendants for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)  On August 20, 2020, Defendants each filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On May 19, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Melissa Mailhot.  (5-19-21 Minute Order.)  On May 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Nicole Mailhot.  (5-4-22 Minute Order.)

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) and Request for Judicial Notice.  No opposition has been filed.

            On July 5, 2022, based on the Stipulation of parties, the Court continued the trial date from July 14, 2022, to October 6, 2022.

II.              Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

1.     Defendants Melissa Mailhot and Nicole Mailhot’s Answers to the Complaint, Exhibit 1;

2.     Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, Exhibit 2;

3.     This Court’s orders granting Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, on May 19, 2021, and May 4, 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.  Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of the orders and documents filed in the instant case.  Although it is not necessary to take judicial notice of these documents, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice.

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, he sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel.  (Anderson Decl. p. 1; Ex. 1.)  As of the date of the Motion, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s request to meet and confer.  The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the requirement to attempt a meet and confer with Defendants.

B.    Merits

Plaintiff, an insurer, asserts a single cause of action seeking to recover damages of $15,596.42 arising from an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about April 14, 2019, between Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant Melissa Mailhot, as the driver of the vehicle involved.  (Compl. pp. 1-3.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nicole Mailhot was the registered owner of the vehicle that was involved in the accident with Plaintiff’s insured and that Defendant Melissa Mailhot was driving the vehicle with the express or implied permission of Defendant Nicole.  (Id. at ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff alleges it investigated its insured’s claim, determined the claim was covered, and paid its insured $15,596.42 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 Melissa Mailhot contradict any denial in her Answer.  Specifically, the admissions admit (1) that Defendant Melissa was driving a motor vehicle at the time of the incident; (2) she was driving the vehicle “with Nicole Mailhot’s express or implied permission;” (3) “Nicole Mailhot was the registered owner of the motor vehicle” she was driving; (4) Defendant Melissa “failed to drive with reasonable care;” (5) that she was “the sole cause of the collision with the Insured;” (6) that she “caused the vehicle to be involved in a collision;” (7) as a result of the collision, the Insured incurred damages (8) “of at least $15,596.42;” (9) that the insurer “has been damaged in the amount of at least $15,596.42, 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) “that the affirmative defenses [Defendant Melissa] asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.”  (4-6-21 Anderson Decl. – Ex. A; 5-19-21 Minute Order.)

The Requests for Admission deemed admitted against Defendant Nicole Mailhot contradict the general denial in her Answer.  Specifically, the admissions admit that (1) on April 14, 2019, Defendant Nicole was the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the collision; (2) “Melissa Mailhot was driving the vehicle with [Nicole Mailhot’s] permission;” (3) Defendant Nicole “failed to exercise reasonable care by permitting Melissa Mailhot to drive the vehicle;” (4) Defendant Nicole’s “failure to exercise ordinary care in permitting Melissa Mailhot to drive the vehicle was a substantial factor in causing the collision;” (5) “the collision caused the insured to incur damages;” (6) “at the time of the collision the vehicle was uninsured;” (7) “as a result of the collision, [Defendant Nicole] caused the insured to incur damages of at least $15,596.42;” (8) “plaintiff as the insurer for the insured has been damaged in the amount of at least $15,596.42, 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 (9) “affirmative defenses [Defendant Nicole has] asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.”  (4-8-22 Anderson Decl. – Ex. A; 5-4-22 Minute Order.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Complaint properly pleads a subrogation cause of action and that Defendants made several judicial admissions by way of the admitted Requests for Admission. The admissions establish the facts upon which Plaintiff bases its Complaint and Defendants have not opposed this Motion to demonstrate otherwise.

Accordingly, the Motion 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, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and have 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.