Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC00061 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC00061, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC00061 Hearing Date: October 26, 2022 Dept: 26

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Michael Ramos is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Michael Ramos (“Defendant”) on January 5, 2021. Defendant filed an Answer on March 2, 2021.

On June 13, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendants. (Minute Order, 06/13/22.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant on June 29, 2022. Defendant filed an opposition on July 11, 2022.

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.)

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].)

Discussion

Plaintiff filed a Request for Judicial Notice of (1) Defendant’s Answer filed on March 2, 2021; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted filed on April 21, 2022; and (3) the Court’s order of June 13, 2022 deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted. The Court takes judicial notice of these documents 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 Request for Admissions directly contradict the general denial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer. The admissions admit that Defendant failed to drive with reasonable care. (Motion, Anderson Decl., Exh. A, Request for Admission No. 2.) They also admit that Defendant was the sole cause of the accident with Plaintiff’s insured, that Defendant was 100 percent at fault in the collision, that Defendant caused the Plaintiff’s insured to incur damages as a result, and Defendant’s lack of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing the accident that injured Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-6.) The admissions admit that Defendant caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $8,982.06. (Id. at Request for Admission No. 7-8.) Finally, Defendant admits that the affirmative defenses asserted in the Answer lack merit and evidentiary support. (Id. at Request for Admission No. 9.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendant with the Request for Admissions that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The admissions establish the facts upon which Plaintiff based its Complaint and that Defendant has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint in the Answer.

Defendant’s opposition fails to address the specific admissions detailed above. It cites to case law that holds, as a general matter, cases should be decided on the merits instead of on procedural deficiencies. (Opp., p. 3:11-17.) However, the case cited does not involve a party seeking to dispose of the action following a grant of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted. (See Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 398.) Nor does Defendant offer any authority as to why the order deeming the admissions admitted amounts to “procedural deficiencies” and is not a determination on the merits. Therefore, the opposition fails to overcome Plaintiff’s showing that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Michael Ramos is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.