Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 20STLC04437, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Hashemi v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Code Civ. Proc., § 438; Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146)

Defendants Thomas Song and Bruce Ramirez’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Complaint of Plaintiff Seyed Hashemi is GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Seyed Hashemi (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for property damage against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Deputy Bruce Ramirez and Deputy Thomas Song. Defendants Ramirez and Song filed an Amended Answer to the Complaint on April 3, 2023.

Defendant Song filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions on March 3, 2023. The Court granted the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions against Plaintiff on April 24, 2023. (Minute Order, 04/24/23.)

Defendants filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Plaintiff on April 26, 2023. On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Response to Motion to Deem for Request for Admission.”

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.)

While a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438, et seq. must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, there is no such requirement for a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to the common law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439 [moving party must file 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].)

Defendants’ Motion is accompanied by a request for judicial notice of the matters deemed admitted in Defendant Song’s Requests for Admission, Set One and this Court’s April 24, 2023 order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. The Court takes judicial notice of these facts pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549) [holding that the court may take judicial notice of matters that cannot be reasonably controverted, including “admissions and concessions.”].)

The admissions in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, directly contradict the allegations and causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Specifically, the admissions admit that (1) Plaintiff never had the reading glasses he alleges went missing while in custody at the Los Angeles County Jail; (2) Plaintiff never saw Defendant Song touch his reading glasses or the bag where he allegedly stored the reading glasses during a cell search; (3) Plaintiff never saw Defendant Ramirez touch his reading glasses during a cell search or the bag where he allegedly stored the reading glasses during a cell search; and (4) Plaintiff does not know whether Defendants Ramirez or Song took

his reading glasses during the cell search and could have lost his glasses before the cell search. (Motion, Request for Judicial Notice, citing 04/24/23 Minute Order.)

By this Motion, Defendants have demonstrated that they served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions that effectively contradicted of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The admissions disprove the facts upon which Plaintiff bases the Complaint and demonstrate that Plaintiff’s cause of action for property damage against Defendants has no merit.

Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Deem for Request for Admission appears to be an opposition to Defendant Song’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, which the Court heard and granted on April 24, 2023. The Response, therefore, is not timely with respect to the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission. Even if the Court were to consider the Response, it does not demonstrate that the Court should “dismiss” or otherwise reconsider its prior ruling on the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission or its ruling on the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, which provides that where a party fails to serve timely and verified responses to requests for admission, the Court must deem the admissions admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff makes no showing that responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, were served on Defendant Song prior to the hearing on April 24, 2023. (Answer to Motion, pp. 1-4.)

Plaintiff also cites a portion of section 2033.280 that relieves the responding party from any waiver of objections to requests for admission. Specifically, the statute provides that the Court may relieve a party from the waiver of objections if (1) they subsequently served a substantially compliant response; and (2) their failure to serve a timely response was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) First, this statutory basis for relief does not mean the Court can “dismiss” the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission. It only provides for relief from the waiver of any objections to the requests for admission. Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that they, at any point, served Defendant Song with substantially compliant responses to Requests for Admission, Set One. Therefore, the Court’s April 24, 2023 ruling on the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted remains unchanged and supports Defendants’ instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.