Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV28657, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28657    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     August 28, 2023                     TRIAL DATE:  March 5, 2024

CASE:                         James Hernandez v. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV28657 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant LA Live Theatre, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On August 3, 2021, Plaintiff, James Hernandez, initiated this action against Defendant, LA Live Theatre, LLC (erroneously sued as Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc.), for negligence and premises liability.  Plaintiff alleges he was working on a stage at Defendant’s property located at 777 Chick Hearn Court, Los Angeles, California, when he tripped on a black electrical outlet box improperly stored and/or placed on the stage by Defendant, causing Plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries.

            On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney indicating Plaintiff was now self-represented.

            On July 25, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted Requests for Admissions, Set Two, against Plaintiff.  Defendant served Plaintiff with a Notice of Ruling by overnight mail on the same day.

            On July 28, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the deemed admissions and the workers compensation rule of exclusivity.  The motion was served on Plaintiff by mail service.

            Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition.

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

Defendant requests judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint, (2) Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set Two, (3) the Court’s July 25, 2023 Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Deemed Admissions, (4) Defendant’s service of a Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff following the Court’s July 25, 2023 ruling, and (5) a copy of the California Division of Workers’ Compensation Electronic Adjudication Management System showing details of Plaintiff’s Workers’ Compensation claim, case number ADJ12728201.

The unopposed requests are GRANTED.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d), (h); Pang v. Beverly Hospital, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989-90.)

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 satisfied the meet and confer requirement.  (See Declaration of Jeffrey Y. Tsao, ¶ 9.)   

C.     Analysis

            “Workers’ compensation provides the exclusive remedy against an employer for an injury sustained by an employee in the course of employment and compensable under the workers’ compensation law. [Citations]”  (Angelotti v. The Walt Disney Co. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1403; Lab. Code §§ 3600-3602, 5300.)  “This precludes a tort remedy against the employer if the conditions of compensation are present.”  (Id. at p. 1403.)  There are some situations in which the injured employee may maintain a civil action against his or her employer.  These include statutory exceptions such as: 1) physical assault by the employer; 2) aggravation of injury by the employer’s fraudulent concealment; 3) products liability cases, 4) power press guards; and 5) the employer is uninsured.  (See Lab. Code §§ 3602, 3706, 4553.) 

            “An employee may have more than one employer for purposes of workers’ compensation, and, in situations of dual employers, the second or ‘special’ employer may enjoy the same immunity from a common law negligence action on account of an industrial injury as does the first or ‘general’ employer.” (Santa Cruz Poultry v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 575, 578.)  “In this dual employer situation, the employee is generally limited to a statutory workers’ compensation remedy for injuries he received in the course of his employment with the special employer; he may not bring a separate tort action against either employer.” (Riley v. Southwest Marine (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1242, 1248.) “Thus where there is dual employment the worker is barred from maintaining an action for damages against either employer.”  (Brassinga v. City of Mountain View (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 195, 209.)    

            Defendant argues the motion should be granted because Plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims given that the Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), which have been deemed admitted against Plaintiff, show Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act.  Specifically, the following admissions have been deemed admitted:

o   California Workers’ Compensation Act bars Plaintiff’s Complaint because Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy arising out of the alleged incident is the right to recover Workers’ Compensation benefits.  (RFA Nos. 32 and 33.)

o   Plaintiff was lent by his general employer to Defendant at the time of the incident, and Defendant was therefore his special employer.  (RFA No. 37, 38, 43, and 44.)

            These admissions show Plaintiff’s claim are barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act.   Plaintiff admits he was working in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident and was in a dual employment situation.  Further, the Workers’ Compensation Act extends to the dual employer context.  (Brassinga, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 209.)  Indeed, RFA Nos. 32 and 33 each, on their own, signal the end to Plaintiff’s case.  Those admissions establish workers’ compensation benefits is Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for his alleged injuries.  Plaintiff provides no argument to the contrary.

IV.       CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.  As Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion, nor sought to be relieved of the foregoing admissions, which were deemed admitted against Plaintiff on July 25, 2023, leave to amend is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   August 28, 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.