Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC10402, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC10402    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Dominic Anaya

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:          Filed on September 8, 2022                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     Filed on September 12, 2022                            [   ] Late                      [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Dominic Anaya (“Defendant” or “Anaya”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile accident between Defendant Anaya and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy.  (Compl. ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff compensated Insured for claimed damages in the amount of $14,695.11 and filed the instant action against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. at pp. 2-3.)

On September 9, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On May 31, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant, filed on April 5, 2022.  (5-31-22 Minute Order.)

            On June 13, 2022, pursuant to the Stipulation of parties, the Court continued the trial date from June 14, 2022, to July 14, 2022.  (6-13-22 Stipulation and Order.)  On June 28, 2022, the Court granted another continuance pursuant to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order to Continue Trial, pursuant to stipulation of all parties.  (6-28-22 Minute Order.)

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) and Request for Judicial Notice.  Plaintiff noted that the Motion is submitted on the moving papers, and it will not appear at the hearing.  (Mot. p. 2.)  On September 8, 2022, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion and on September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Opposition.

II.              Request for Judicial Notice

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

1.     Defendant Anaya’s Answers to 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 May 31, 2021, 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 August 9, 2022, prior to filing the instant Motion, he sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel.  (Espinosa Decl. ¶ 1; Ex. 1.)  On August 12, 2022, defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and the attorneys attempted to reach an informal resolution of the case prior to filing of the instant Motion.  (Ibid. at ¶ 2.)  However, no agreement was reached.  (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 $14,695.11 arising from an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about September 3, 2019, between Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant Anaya.  (Compl. pp. 1-3.)  Plaintiff alleges it investigated its insured’s claim, determined the claim was covered, and paid its insured $14,695.11 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 Anaya contradict any denial in his Answer.  Specifically, the admissions admit the following statements:

(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) he was “100% at fault in causing the COLLISION;”

(5) “as a result of the COLLISION, [Defendant Anaya] caused the INSURED to incur damages of at least $14,695.11;”

(6) “plaintiff as the insurer for the INSURED has been damaged in the amount of at least $14,695.11, 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.”

(4-5-22 Delaney Decl. – Ex. A; 5-31-22 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff argues it is entitled to a Motion for Judgment on the pleadings because these admissions “remove any issue raised by Defendant DOMINIC ANAYA under a general denial or any affirmative defenses raised in the attached answer.”  (Memorandum p. 3.)

The Opposition was filed by defense counsel, who represented that Defendant’s location is currently unknown.  (Colula Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)  In its Opposition, defense counsel argues that the case should be adjudicated on the merits, or alternatively, the Court should continue the hearing for 45-60 days and continue the trial set on September 28, 2022.  (Oppos. p. 1.)  Counsel contends that “the harm that will result to Defendant from this Motion far outweighs any harm to Plaintiff” because “Defendant will be substantially prejudiced as he will be essentially precluded from presenting his defense.”  (Ibid. at p. 2.)

In its Reply, Plaintiff argues that “the Court should grant Plaintiff’s Motion so that this matter may finally be resolved” given that the Defendant cannot be located.  (Reply p. 1.)  The Motion should not be denied or continued due to “Defendant’s non-participation in the litigation process” for the past two years.  (Ibid. at p. 2.)  Plaintiff states that it has met its burden to demonstrate it is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings given the allegations in the Complaint and the admissions made by Defendant.  (Ibid. at pp. 2-4.)

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.  The fact that the Defendant’s whereabouts are unknown is not sufficient to deny or continue the Motion and trial has already been continued twice in this case.

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 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.