Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC04643, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04643    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, January 04, 2024

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NOLAN CURL aka NOLAN HENRY CURL, and DOES 1 to 10

Case No.:                                22STLC04643

Motion:                                   Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          Filed as of December 18, 2023                       [   ] Late          [   ] None 

REPLY:                     Filed as of December 21, 2023                       [   ] Late          [   ] None 

BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Nolan Curl (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for negligence due to a car accident involving Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant.

Defendant filed his answer on December 06, 2022.

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem RFAs as admitted. The Court granted the motion and ordered $460.00 in sanctions against Defendant.

On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendant files in opposition. Plaintiff files in reply. 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff prays for the Court to grant its motion for judgment on the pleadings and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not provide any defenses in his answer to the complaint.

OPPOSITION

            In opposition, Defendant argues that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because it would prejudice Defendant from being able to file his cross-complaint against Defendant’s employer due to facts and circumstances revealed in discovery. Since Defendant’s Employer is a proper party, the case is not yet fully at issue. Defendant additionally requests in the alternative for the Court to continue the hearing on the motion so that Defendant can properly serve his Employer and that the parties may attempt to informally resolve their issues.

REPLY

            In reply, Plaintiff reasserts that it meets its burden by providing the Court with Defendant’s admissions which contradicts Defendant’s general denial and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff additionally argues that the lawsuit is at issue because Defendant had ample time to file a cross-complaint before Plaintiff’s filing of this motion and has no excuse for not doing so earlier.  Moreover, Defendant’s abandonment of the litigation would not be grounds to deny the motion as Defendant’s non-cooperation does not justify denying the instant motion.

ANALYSIS

I.          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 may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.) 

When the moving party is a plaintiff, he or she must demonstrate that the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and that the answer does not state sufficient facts to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).)  

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to 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.)  

II.        Discussion

A.     Evidentiary Motions

The Court denies Plaintiff’s evidentiary motion for the Court to take judicial notice of Defendant’s answer, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs as Admitted, and the Court’s order deeming Plaintiff’s RFAs as admitted for the reasons specified in Part C of the order.

B.  Meet and Confer Requirement

Before addressing the merits, the Court notes that the Motion is accompanied by a “meet and confer” declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 439(a). Plaintiff’s counsel states that on October 05, 2023, his office served on Defendant’s a meet a confer letter. (Tristan Espinosa Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. 1.) The letter requested Defendant’s counsel reach out to discuss settlement or in the alternative meet and confer. (Id., Ex. 1.) To date Plaintiff’s counsel has received no contact from Defendant. Thus, the motion meets the “meet and confer” requirement under CCP § 439(a).

            C. Cause of Action

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff relies on admissions that were deemed admitted, Plaintiff’s motion improperly seeks a determination of evidentiary issues. The function of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, similar to a demurrer, is to test the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. (See Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 660.) A hearing on a demurrer, and thus motion for judgment on the pleadings, may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of documents whose truthfulness or proper interpretation may be disputable. (Id.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts. (See id.) To the extent Plaintiff relies on Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.Ap.4th 730, 736 for the argument that Defendant cannot introduce contradictory evidence absent a motion to withdraw these admissions, this would still be an evidentiary issue. The more proper vehicle for arguments based on these admissions would be a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff brings an automobile subrogation action under a theory of negligence stemming from a car accident involving Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant.

To have a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that around July 21, 2021, Defendant and DOE 1 (collectively “Driver”) caused Plaintiff’s insured to incur a loss that was covered under insured’s policy. (Complaint p. 2.) Specifically, Driver was negligently operating a certain motor vehicle by driving inattentively or otherwise driving without the due care required of a reasonably prudent driver, thus causing the accident. (Id.) The negligent operation of the vehicle foreseeably and proximately caused the insured to suffer damages. (Id.)

Defendant, in his answer, denies the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s insured’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident and the sole cause of the injuries and/or damages alleged by Plaintiff. (Ans. p. 2.) Moreover, Defendant affirmatively defends by alleging that Defendant’s acts was superseded by the acts or omissions of others including Plaintiff’s insured which were the sole proximate cause of any alleged injury, damage, or loss to the Plaintiff and or Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. p. 3.)

 Plaintiff argues that it has met its burden and Defendant’s answer does not state sufficient facts to constitute a defense to the complaint because upon the Court taking judicial notice of the minute order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFA as admitted admissions, any issues raised by Defendant as general denials or any affirmative defenses raised in his answer were contradicted and lack merit or evidentiary support. However, plaintiff mistakes the purpose of the Court taking judicial notice in motions for judgment on the pleadings. “In ruling on a [motion for judgment on the pleadings], a court may consider facts of which it has taken judicial notice…This includes the existence of a document. When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. [Citation.]” (Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 660.) Thus, it would be improper for the Court to take the RFAs deemed admitted at face value.

Here, Plaintiff has not carried its burden under CCP § 438(c)(1)(A). Here Defendant affirmatively defends against the element of proximate cause by alleging that a superseding act has caused Plaintiff’s damages. Defendant also alleged that Plaintiff’s insured’s negligence is the sole cause of Plaintiff’s injury and damages. Thus, under the state of the pleadings, since Defendant does have a defense to the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

II.        Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.