Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 21STLC05512, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC05512, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC05512 Hearing Date: September 7, 2023 Dept: 26

State Farm v. Avila, et al.

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 Maricela Avila is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Maricela Avila (“Defendant”). On December 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for monetary sanctions. (Minute Order, 12/05/22.) The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions against Defendant on April 24, 2023. (Minute Order, 04/26/23.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant on June 12, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

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].)

Upon granting Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions, the Court ruled that the following facts are deemed true and undisputed:

1. Defendant Maricela Avila was the driver of a certain motor vehicle described as a 2015 Kia Optima with California license plate 7HND8l2.

2. On or about May II, 2020, Defendant was driving the 2015 Kia Optima with California license plate 7HND812 at and about the intersection of Main Street and Westminster Avenue in the city of Los Angeles, California 90291 and collided said vehicle into Plaintiffs Insured 's 2017 BMW 330i with California license plate 7ZMJ684.

3. That on or about May 11, 2020, Defendant was negligent in the operation of her vehicle at the time of the collision.

4. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs Insured 2017 BMW 330i with California license plate 7ZMJ684 sustained damages in the sum of $12,531.57.

5. That the cost to repair Plaintiff's Insured's 2017 BMW 330i with California license plate 7ZMJ684 in the sum of $12,531.57 was reasonable.

6. That Plaintiff paid for the damages sustained to Plaintiffs Insured’s 2017 BMW 330i with California license plate 7ZMJ684 in the amount of $12,531.57 (less Plaintiff’s Insured’s $500.00 deductible) and is thereby subrogated to the rights of its insured to recover said sum from Defendant.

(Minute Order, 04/24/23, p. 2.) These undisputed facts directly contradict the general denial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer. They admit that at the time of the accident, Defendant failed to drive with reasonable care, that Defendant was the sole cause of the accident with Plaintiff’s insured and as a result, caused Plaintiff’s insured, and subsequently, Plaintiff to incur damages in the amount of $12,531.57. 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. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.