Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC04789, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC04789    Hearing Date: September 8, 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 Cindy Argueta is GRANTED.

SERVICE:                              

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

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

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for automobile subrogation.

MOTION: Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Complaint. The Answer filed by Defendant Cindy Argueta does not allege any matter that would constitute a valid affirmative defense and the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted against Defendant Argueta. As such, all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and causes of actions have been deemed admitted and true.

OBJECTION: None filed as of September 6, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of September 6, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Henry Argueta-Lizama (“Defendant Argueta-Lizama”) and Cindy Argueta (“Defendant Argueta”) on June 30, 2021. Defendants filed an Answer on October 4, 2021. 

On March 29, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendants. (Minute Order, 03/29/22.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Argueta on March 29, 2022. No opposition 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 October 4, 2021; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted filed on February 15, 2022; and (3) the Court’s order of March 29, 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 Argueta’s Answer. The admissions admit that Defendant Argueta was the registered owner of the vehicle that Defendant Argueta-Lizama was driving at the time of the subject accident and gave permission for Defendant Argueta-Lizama to drive it. (Motion, RJN, Exh. A, Request for Admission Nos. 1-2.) The admissions further admit that Defendant Argueta failed to exercise reasonable care in permitting Defendant Argueta-Lizama’s 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 $15,103.11. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-8.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendant Argueta 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 Argueta has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint in the Answer.

Conclusion

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

Moving party to give notice.