Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV07547, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07547    Hearing Date: July 10, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     July 10, 2023                          TRIAL DATE:  January 22, 2024

CASE:                         Azucena Martinez Cordova v. Ruben Rodas De Leon, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV07547

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Ruben Rodas De Leon

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Azucena Martinez Cordova

I.          BACKGROUND

            On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff, Azucena Martinez Cordova, filed this action against Defendants, Ruben Rodas De Leon (“De Leon”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) for injuries and damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff alleges that, on March 21, 2019, Defendants negligently, carelessly, recklessly and unlawfully operated, owned, entrusted, leased, maintained, designed, constructed, controlled, and repaired Defendants’ vehicle so as to cause a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff appears to assert a single cause of action for negligence against all defendants.

            On April 18, 2023, De Leon filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff opposes and De Leon replies.

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.) 

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).)

III.      DISCUSSION

A.    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 satisfied the meet and confer requirement.  (See Declaration of Madeline T. Martin, ¶ 5.)  Notwithstanding this deficiency, the Court considers the merits of the motion.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).) 

B.     Negligence

Plaintiff appears to assert a single cause of action for negligence against De Leon.

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established.  They are (a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; and (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.”  (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917; CACI No. 400.) (Quotations omitted.)   

De Leon argues the Complaint is deficient for the following reasons: (i) the Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against De Leon as it does not plead the elements of duty or breach of a negligence claim; (ii) the Complaint is uncertain; and (iii) the Complaint does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112. 

Plaintiff argues she has alleged the essential factual elements of negligence as provided under CACI No. 400.  De Leon negligently operated a vehicle (Complaint, ¶ 6); Plaintiff was harmed as a result of that conduct (Complaint, ¶¶ 7-11); and De Leon’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm (Complaint, ¶ 7-1).  As such, Plaintiff argues De Leon is on notice of the nature of the claim.

The Court has reviewed the Complaint.  De Leon is correct that the Complaint does not expressly allege the elements of duty or breach.  Indeed, the Complaint is sparse.  However, under a liberal construction of the pleadings, the Court finds that the Complaint alleges the essential facts to apprise De Leon of the gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim.  The case concerns a March 21, 2019 motor vehicle accident between De Leon and Plaintiff  wherein De Leon allegedly operated a vehicle so as to cause an automobile collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle.  (See Complaint, ¶ 6.)  The Court infers from this allegation that De Leon had the duty to operate his vehicle with care and that he breached that duty by causing the collision.  The Complaint is sufficiently pled.

De Leon next argues that the Complaint is uncertain because it does not identify to which defendants the allegations pertain.  For example, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant owned, leased, maintained, and controlled a certain 2012 Toyota Camry Automobile, California license number 8EEB660 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Defendants’ vehicle’). Defendant Ruben Rodas De Leon was operating Defendants’ vehicle with the consent, permission and knowledge of Defendants and Does 1 through 20, and within the scope of such permission and within the course and scope of employment with Defendants Technologies, Inc. and Does 1 through 20.”  (Complaint, ¶ 3.)  While not artfully pled, this allegation apprises De Leon that he was the operator of the vehicle in the incident and may also have owned, leased, maintained, and controlled the vehicle.   

            As to De Leon’s final argument that the Complaint does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, Plaintiff represents that she is asserting one cause of action for negligence against all defendants.  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff would not need to separately state the cause of action as the “First Cause of Action”.  A review of the Complaint supports Plaintiff’s position.

IV.       CONCLUSION

In sum, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   July 10, 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.