Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV17447, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17447 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff Alvin Pruitt (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Santa Monica (“Defendant”) and Does 1-75 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On September 26, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On March 11, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
On September 9, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff. The Court deemed admitted the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests for admission.
On October 15, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was set for hearing on December 16, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. On December 9, 2024, Defendant filed a reply stating that Plaintiff had passed away on September 29, 2024. (A copy of Plaintiff’s death certificate is attached to Defendant’s reply.) One of Plaintiff’s family members informed Defendant of Plaintiff’s death. Defendant does not know if Plaintiff’s family members intend to pursue Plaintiff’s case.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 22, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Defendant asks the Court to grant judgment on the pleadings.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court judicially notices (1) Defendant's requests for admission (attached to Defendant's July 18, 2024 motion for order deeming admitted truth of facts and genuineness of documents) and (2) the Court’s September 9, 2024 order. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Judgment on the pleadings
Code of Civil Procedure section 438 provides in part:
“(b) (1) A party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
* * *
* * *
“(i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
“(ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.
“(2) The motion provided for in this section may be made as to either of the following:
“(A) The entire complaint or cross-complaint or as to any of the causes of action stated therein.
* * *
* * *
“(2) Where a motion is granted pursuant to this section with leave to file an amended complaint or answer, as the case may be, then the court shall grant 30 days to the party against whom the motion was granted to file an amended complaint or answer, as the case may be.
“(3) If the motion is granted with respect to the entire complaint or answer without leave to file an amended complaint or answer, as the case may be, then judgment shall be entered forthwith in accordance with the motion granting judgment to the moving party. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subds. (b), (c), (d), (h).)
‘‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and [thus] attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274.) “In reviewing the motion, [the Court] deem[s] true all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and [the court] may also consider judicially noticed matters. [Citation.]” (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.)
A motion for judgment on the pleadings “normally lies only for defects fully disclosed on the face of the pleading under attack or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Declarations or other extrinsic matters are improper. Therefore, the judge hearing the motion cannot consider discovery admissions or other evidence controverting the pleadings. Rather, the pleading under attack must be accepted as true.” (L. Edmon and C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 7:320, pp. 7(l)-95 to 7(l)-96.)
B. Negligence
“The elements of a negligence claim . . . are . . . : a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.)
DISCUSSION
Defendant asks the Court to grant judgment on the pleadings because, based on the facts deemed admitted in the Court’s September 9, 2024 order, Plaintiff’s complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendant.
“[Requests for admission] are different from other civil discovery tools such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents. ‘Most of the other discovery procedures are aimed primarily at assisting counsel to prepare for trial. Requests for admissions, on the other hand, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried.’ ” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774-775, quoting Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) “[A]dmission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘[T]he purpose of the admissions procedure ... is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” (Id. at p. 775, quoting Hogan & Weber, 1 Cal. Civil Discovery (2d ed. 2005) § 9.1, p. 9–2, fns. omitted.) “Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence.” (Ibid., citing Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.)
As a result of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, the following facts are deemed admitted and cannot be disputed for purposes of Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings:
REQUEST
NO. 1. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff “under any theory of recovery for
the INCIDENT.”
REQUEST
NO. 2. Plaintiff has no evidence that Defendant “acted negligently at any time
during the INCIDENT.”
REQUEST
NO. 3. Plaintiff has no evidence that an employee of Defendant “acted
negligently at any time during the INCIDENT.”
REQUEST
NO. 4. Defendant “acted reasonably at all times during the INCIDENT.”
REQUEST
NO. 5. Defendant “acted with due care at all times during the INCIDENT.”
REQUEST NO. 6. "[Defendant’s] conduct during the INCIDENT was not a substantial factor in causing any harm that [Plaintiff] claim[s] as a result of the INCIDENT.”
In light of the admissions, Plaintiff (and any successor-in-interest) cannot establish that Defendant acted negligently or that any negligence by Defendant or its employees caused Plaintiff to suffer any harm. The Court therefore grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Santa Monica’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff Alvin Pruitt’s claims for motor vehicle tort and general negligence with 30 days leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.