Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08740, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC08740 Hearing Date: May 22, 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.
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 May 17, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None
filed as of May 17, 2023. [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against Defendant Eddie Nieves aka Edward Nieves (“Defendant”) for subrogation,
stemming from an automobile accident between Defendant Nieves and an individual
insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy. (Compl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff
compensated Insured for claimed damages in the amount of $12,389.79 and filed
the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages. (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)
On April 25, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer
to the Complaint.
On November 21, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion
to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted as to Defendant Nieves and granted
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $460.00. (11-21-22 Minute Order.)
On February 27, 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.)
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 to
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 November
21, 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 December
28, 2022, prior to filing the instant Motion, a meet and confer letter was sent
to defense counsel. (McCammack 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 $12,389.79 arising from an alleged motor vehicle
accident that occurred on or about December 24, 2020, between Plaintiff’s
insured and Defendant Nieves, 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 $12,389.79 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 Nieves contradict any denial in his 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) he was “the sole cause of
the COLLISION with plaintiff’s INSURED VEHICLE;” (4) he was “at least 1% at
fault in causing the COLLISION;” (5) he was “100% at fault in causing the
COLLISION;” (6) as a result of the collision, the Insured incurred damages (7)
“of at least $12,389.79;” (8) the insurer “has been damaged in the amount of at
least $12,389.79, 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) “the affirmative
defenses [Defendant] asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary
support.” (10-10-22 Mot. to Deem - Gavrilescu
Decl. – Ex. A; 11-21-22 Minute Order.)
Plaintiff
argues that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because these
admissions “remove any issue raised by Defendant EDDIE NIEVES under a
general denial or any affirmative defenses raised in the attached answer.” (Memorandum p. 3.)
The Court finds that Plaintiff 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.
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 did not respond to
Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and did not oppose the instant Motion. 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.