Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV11683, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11683    Hearing Date: August 4, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     August 4, 2023                       TRIAL DATE:  September 8, 2023

CASE:                         Dimitry Svetlitsa, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV11683

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Vista Ford Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff, Davina Turnbull, filed a form complaint (Case No. 20STCV15900) against Defendant, Vista Ford, Inc., for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for Motor Vehicle.

            On June 24, 2022, Case No. 20STCV15900 was consolidated with Case No. 20STCV11683.  Case number 20STCV11683 is the lead case.

            On July 12, 2023, Vista Ford, filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

            The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.  [Citations.]”  (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.)  The court must assume the truth of all properly pleaded material facts and allegations, but not contentions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Wise v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738.)  “A judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant is appropriate when the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).)”  (Kapsimallis v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667, 672.)  “Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  [Citation.]”  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)  Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)  

If the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, it may be granted with or without leave to amend.  (Code Civ. Proc., 438, subd. (h)(1).)  “Where a demurrer is sustained or a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the original complaint, 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.”  (Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852 (emphasis added).)

A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54, subd. (c).)

III.      DISCUSSION

A.    Judicial Notice

“It is generally not proper for the court to refer to extrinsic material or facts in ruling on a general demurrer, for the obvious reason that only the law is presented for the court’s consideration. This rule occasionally, however, has been relaxed in order to allow the court to take judicial notice of evidentiary matters in its own records, including affidavits, declarations, and interrogatories or requests for admissions, which are inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint. [Citation.]”  (Able v. Van Der Zee (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d, 728, 734.)  “[I]n order for judicial notice to support a motion for judgment on the pleadings by negating an express allegation of the pleading, the notice must be of something that cannot reasonably be controverted.”  (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468 (Columbia Casualty ).)  The court may consider a party’s admissions or concessions which cannot reasonably be controverted.  (Pang v. Beverly Hospital, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989-90.)

Here, Defendant requests judicial notice of Requests for Admissions, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 which were deemed admitted against Plaintiff.  (Sohrabian Decl., Ex. A.)  As discussed below, the admissions are fatal to Plaintiff’s claims and cannot reasonably be controverted. 

            Accordingly, the unopposed request is GRANTED.

B.     Meet and Confer 

The parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(2).)  Defense counsel has not satisfied the meet and confer requirement.  (See Declaration of Tiffany Sohrabian, ¶ 5.)   However, a failure to comply with the requirement shall not be grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings.¿ (Code Civ.¿ Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).)¿ Therefore, the Court considers the merits of the motion.

C.     Analysis

            The elements of a “Motor Vehicle” cause of action are the same as a cause of action for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Defendant argues that the motion should be granted because Plaintiff cannot prevail on her claims given that the Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), which have been deemed admitted against Plaintiff, directly contradict the allegations of the Complaint.  Specifically, the following admissions have been deemed admitted:

o   Plaintiff had no basis to sue Defendant.  (RFA No. 1.)

o   Persons other than Defendant caused the incident.  (RFA No. 2.)

o   Plaintiff was not injured as a result of the incident.  (RFA No. 3.)

o   Persons other than Defendant caused the injuries Plaintiff claims to have suffered as a result of the incident.  (RFA No. 5.)

o   Defendant did not cause or contribute to the occurrence of the incident.  (RFA No. 6.)

            These admissions show that Plaintiff cannot prove her claim for injuries resulting from the alleged motor vehicle collision.  Indeed, RFA Nos. 2, 3, 5, or 6 each, on their own, signal the end to Plaintiff’s case.  The admissions establish that Defendant neither caused the incident or contributed to the incident.  (RFA Nos. 2 and 6.)  Further, if Plaintiff were injured, other persons caused her injuries.  (RFA Nos. 3 and 5.)  Plaintiff provides no argument to the contrary.

IV.       CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.  Because Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion, and because the foregoing admissions were deemed admitted against Plaintiff on May 12, 2022, leave to amend is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   August 4, 2023                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.