Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC00976, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC00976     Hearing Date: September 12, 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 DENIED.  An Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Default Judgment is set for November 30, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25, Spring Street Courthouse.

 

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 September 6, 2022                        [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 6, 2022                        [   ] Late                      [X] None

 

ANALYSIS:

 

I.                Background

 

On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Leonor Orozco (“Defendant”) 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 $10,118.27 and filed the instant action against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)

 

On May 18, 2021, based on Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default, the Court entered default against Defendant.  On June 7, 2021, Defendant filed an untimely Answer to the Complaint, which the Court erroneously accepted.

 

On March 22, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Leonor Orozco.  (3-22-22 Minute Order.)

 

On June 17, 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 22, 2022, based on the Stipulation of parties, the Court continued the trial date from August 4, 2022, to November 9, 2022.

 

II.              Request for Judicial Notice

 

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

 

1.     Defendant Orozco’s Answer to the Complaint, Exhibit 1;

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

3.     This Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, on March 22, 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 March 31, 2022, prior to filing the instant Motion, she sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel.  (Reese Decl. p. 1; Ex. 1.)  As of the date of the Motion, Defendant had 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 Defendant.

 

B.    Merits

 

Plaintiff, an insurer, asserts a single cause of action seeking to recover damages of $10,118.27 arising from an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about May 14, 2020, between Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant.  (Compl. pp. 1-3.)  Plaintiff alleges that it investigated its insured’s claim, determined the claim was covered, and paid its insured $10,118.27 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 contradict any denial in Defendant’s Answer.  However, the Requests for Admission also seem to include typographical errors because they ask Defendant to admit that “as a result of the COLLISION, [Defendant] caused the INSURED to incur damages . . . of at least $.00;” and “the insurer for the INSURED has been damaged in the amount of at least $.00, 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 . . . .”  Even were the Court to deem those requests for admission admitted, they are not helpful to Plaintiff’s case.  The Court notes that Plaintiff has properly pleaded damages in its complaint.

 

This issue, however, is superseded by a separate issue – namely, that Defendant’s Answer was untimely as it was filed after Default was entered.  The Court erroneously accepted the Answer and should not have.  Accordingly, Defendant’s Answer is hereby stricken. Once default had been entered, Defendant is not entitled to take further affirmative steps such as filing a pleading or motion.  Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 1294, 1301.  

 

The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Default Judgment for November 30, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25. 

 

V.             Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.  The Default entered on May 18, 2021 stands.  An Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Default Judgment is set for November 30, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25, Spring Street Courthouse.  The trial date of November 9, 2022 is hereby vacated.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.