Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC10232, Date: 2023-04-12 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: 20STLC10232    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants Efrain Garcia, Julio Efrain Garcia

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:          Filed on March 24, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     Filed on April 3, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On December 8, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Efrain Garcia, aka Efrain Gabriel Menchugarcia (“Efrain”) and Julio Efrain Garcia (“Julio”), (collectively “Defendants”), for subrogation, stemming from an automobile accident between Defendant Efrain and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy.  (Compl. ¶ 6.)  Defendant Julio is the alleged “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 $19,219.62 and filed the instant claim against Defendants for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)

On October 12, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On April 18, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted as to Defendants Efrain and Julio and granted Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $460.00.  (4-18-22 Minute Order.)

On June 7, 2022, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court continued Non-Jury Trial to March 14, 2023.  (6-7-22 Minute Order.)

On January 6, 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 it will not appear at the hearing.  (Mot. p. 2.)

On March 24, 2023, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion and on April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Opposition.

On February 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and continued the trial date to May 2, 2023.  (2-27-23 Minute Order.)

II.              Request for Judicial Notice

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

1.     Defendants’ 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 18, 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 November 9, 2022, prior to filing the instant Motion, he sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel.  (Anderson Decl. ¶ 1; Ex. 1.)  Defense counsel did not respond to the letter.  (Ibid. at ¶ 2.)

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 $19,219.62 arising from an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about September 7, 2019, between Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant Efrain, as the driver of the vehicle involved.  (Compl. pp. 1-3.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Julio was the registered owner of the vehicle that was involved in the accident with Plaintiff’s insured and that Defendant Efrain was driving the vehicle with the express or implied permission of Defendant Julio.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff alleges it investigated its insured’s claim, determined the claim was covered, and paid its insured $19,219.62 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 Efrain contradict any denial in his Answer.  Specifically, the admissions admit (1) that Defendant Efrain was driving a motor vehicle at the time of the incident; (2) he was driving the vehicle “with JULIO EFRAIN GARCIA’s express or implied permission;” (3) “JULIO EFRAIN GARCIA was the registered owner of the motor vehicle” he was driving at the time of the incident; (4) Defendant Efrain “failed to drive with reasonable care;” (5) that he was “the sole cause of the COLLISION with the INSURED;” (6) that he “caused the VEHICLE to be involved in a COLLISION;” (7) as a result of the collision, the Insured incurred damages (8) “of at least $19,219.62;” (9) that the insurer “has been damaged in the amount of at least $19,219.62, 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 Efrain] asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.”  (3-15-22 Anderson Decl. – Ex. A; 4-18-22 Minute Order.)

The Requests for Admission deemed admitted against Defendant Julio contradict any denial in his Answer.  Specifically, the admissions admit that (1) on September 7, 2019, Defendant Julio was the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the collision; (2) “EFRAIN GARCIA was driving the vehicle with [Defendant Julio’s] permission;” (3) Defendant Julio “failed to exercise reasonable care by permitting EFRAIN GARCIA to drive the VEHICLE;” (4) Defendant Julio’s “failure to exercise ordinary care in permitting EFRAIN GARCIA to drive the VEHICLE was a substantial factor in causing the COLLISION;” (5) “the COLLISION caused the INSURED to incur damages;” (6) “of at least $19,219.62” and (7) “plaintiff as the insurer for the INSURED has been damaged in the amount of at least $19,219.62, 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.”  (3-15-22 Anderson Decl. – Ex. A; 4-18-22 Minute Order.)  Finally, (8) “affirmative defenses [Defendant Julio has] asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.”  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because these admissions “remove any issue raised by Defendants…under a general denial or any affirmative defenses raised in the attached answer.”  (Memorandum p. 3.)

Defense counsel has submitted an Opposition to the Motion.  He states that he was assigned to defend the lawsuit by Defendants’ insurance company, Viking Insurance Company, on or around February 2, 2021.  (Hummel Decl. ¶ 3.)  In order to avoid default, defense counsel filed an Answer on behalf of Defendants, while simultaneously attempting to locate them with the help of an investigator.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 4-8, 13.)  As he was unable to locate Defendants, he could not obtain verification for the responses to the requests for admission.  (Ibid. at ¶ 9.)  Defense counsel states that he believes neither Defendant is aware of the instant proceedings.  (Ibid. at ¶ 10.)  He also responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letter on December 21, 2022, and offered to settle the matter for $4,826.92, the amount available under Defendants’ insurance policy.  (Ibid. at ¶ 14.)

Defense counsel argues that granting the Motion would “not be equitable and not fair” because Defendants cannot be located by Plaintiff or defense counsel and do not have knowledge of the litigation.  (Oppos. p. 3.)  Defense counsel cites to Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order of summary judgment against Defendant, whose whereabouts were unknown during the litigation.  (Brigante, 20 Cal.App.4th 1569.)  The case was remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in issuing a protective order or another alternative to ordering requests for admission admitted.  (Brigante, 20 Cal.App.4th at  1588-89.)  The Court noted that it did “not intend to instruct the court on how to exercise its discretion; we require only that it be exercised.”  (Ibid.)

In its Reply, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ failure to participate in resolution of the case necessitates the need for this dispositive motion” and “Defendants’ non-compliance with discovery statutes and non-participation in the litigation process does not justify denying Plaintiff’s instant Motion.”  (Reply – Anderson Decl. ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff states that the instant case is distinguishable from Brigante because of Brigante’s excessive demands for damages in the amount of $500,000 that were difficult to ascertain.  (Reply p. 2.)  Here, the damages requested in the amount of $19,219.62 entirely consist of special damages for total loss of value of vehicle, rental car expenses, insured’s deductive, out of pocket expenses, and auction expenses, minus salvage amount collected.  (Ibid.; Anderson Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.)  Moreover, unlike the court in Brigante, the Court, in the instant case, exercised its discretion in deeming the RFAs admitted.  (Reply p. 2; Anderson Decl. ¶ 6.)

First, the Court finds that on April 18, 2022, the Court did exercise its discretion in finding it proper to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted.  (4-18-22 Minute Order.)  Defense counsel had not filed an opposition to the Motion indicating that the whereabouts of Defendants were unknown and, the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280, had the authority to grant the Motion. Had Defendants’ counsel informed the Court in an opposition that it could not locate Defendants, the Court could have considered alternatives to ordering the requests deemed admitted.

Second, with respect to the instant 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.

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, Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and currently, cannot be located.  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.