Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC00153, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC00153 Hearing Date: August 3, 2022 Dept: 26
TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP
§ 2033.280)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s
Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions is
GRANTED. DEFENDANT SANDRA HAYES IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $160.00 TO
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
(“the Motion”) on January 10, 2022.
Following the initial hearing and a subsequent order
reconsidering the Motion, the matter was continued to August 3, 2022 to allow
Plaintiff to filed a supplemental declaration demonstrating that the Requests
for Admission were served on Defendant Hayes. (Minute Order, 06/29/22.)
Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on July 21, 2022. No opposition to
the instant Motion has been filed to date.
Plaintiff has now demonstrated that it served Requests for
Admissions on Defendant Sandra Hayes (“Defendant Hayes”) on June 24, 2021. (Motion, Supp. Anderson Decl., Exh. A.) Despite
a meet and confer effort, Defendant Hayes did not serve responses to the Requests
for Admission. (Motion, Reese Decl., ¶¶3-4 and Exh. B.)
There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort
before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding
party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Due to
Defendant Hayes’ failure to timely serve responses and resultant waiver of
objections, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for
Admission admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
The Court is required to award sanctions under the moving
statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) While properly noticed, the
sanctions sought are excessive under a lodestar calculation. Sanctions are granted
against Defendant Hayes in the amount of $160.00, based on half-an-hour of
attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Motion, Reese Decl., ¶5.)
Conclusion
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion
to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT
SANDRA HAYES IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $160.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.
(2 of 2).
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 Defendants Sandra Hayes and Cynthia Ratliff is GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE PROPOSED JUDGMENTS WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Sandra Hayes (“Defendant Hayes”) and Cynthia Ratliff (“Defendant Ratliff”) on January 7, 2021. Defendants filed an Answer on March 11, 2021.
On March 10, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Ratliff. (Minute Order, 03/10/22.)
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendants on June 1, 2022. The Motion initially came for hearing on June 29, 2022 and was continued by the Court to August 3, 2022. (Minute Order, 06/29/22.) The instant Motion is being heard concurrently with Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Hayes, which the Court has granted. No opposition to the instant Motion has been filed to date.
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) Defendants’ Answer filed on March 11, 2021; (2) Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted filed on January 10, 2022; and (3) the Court’s orders of March 9, 2022 and March 10, 2022 deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted. The Court takes judicial notice of these documents, as well as of its rulings on June 29, 2022 and August 3, 2022 with respect to the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Defendant Sandra Hayes, 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 directly contradict the general denial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendants’ Answer. In particular, the admissions state that at the time of the accident Defendant Hayes failed to drive with reasonable care. (Supp. Anderson Decl., Exh. A, Request for Admission No. 4.) They also admit that Defendant Hayes was the sole cause of the accident with Plaintiff’s insured, that she caused the Plaintiff’s insured to incur damages as a result, that as a result she caused Plaintiff to incur damages, and the lack of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing the accident that injured Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-8.) The admissions admit that Defendant Hayes caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $3,018.04. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 8-9.)
Similarly, the admissions by Defendant Ratliff contradict the Answer. The admissions admit that Defendant Ratliff was the registered owner of the vehicle Defendant Hayes was driving at the time of the subject accident and gave permission for Defendant Hayes to drive. (Motion, RJN, Exh. A, Request for Admission Nos. 1-2.) The admissions further admit that Defendant Ratliff failed to exercise reasonable care in permitting Defendant Hayes’ use of the subject vehicle and that said lack of care was a substantial cause of the subject accident. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 3-4.) Finally, the admissions admit that this failure caused Plaintiff to incur damages from the subject accident in the amount of at least $3,018.04. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-7.)
By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendants with requests for admission that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The admissions here establish that the facts upon which Plaintiff its Complaint and that Defendants have not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Conclusion
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendants Sandra Hayes and Cynthia Ratliff is GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE PROPOSED JUDGMENTS WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.