Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC05706, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC05706 Hearing Date: March 20, 2023 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
Defendants Alejandro Casillas, Jr., Janelle Zenteno and Jonathan Fabian Zenteno
is GRANTED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for
automobile subrogation against Defendants Alejandro Casillas, Jr. (“Defendant
Casillas”), Janelle Zenteno (“Defendant Janelle”) and Jonathan Fabian Zenteno (“Defendant
Jonathan”) on August 2, 2021. Defendants filed an Answer on September 20,
2021.
Plaintiff filed Motions to Deem
Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions on May 18, 2022. On September
28 and 29, 2022, the Court granted the Motions to Deem Requests for Admission
Admitted and Request for Sanctions against Defendants. (Minute Orders, 09/28/22
and 09/29/22.)
Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendants on December 2, 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 September 20, 2021; (2)
Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted filed on May 18,
2022; and (3) the Court’s orders of September 28 and 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 Defendants’ Answer. The admissions admit that Defendant Casillas failed
to drive with reasonable care. (Motion to Deem RFAs, Exh. 2, Request for
Admission No. 4.) They also admit that Defendant Casillas was the sole cause of
the accident with Plaintiff’s insured and as a result, Defendant Casillas caused
the Plaintiff’s insured to incur damages as a result. (Id. at Request
for Admission Nos. 5-7.) The admissions admit that Defendant Casillas caused
Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $8,586.00. (Id. at Request for
Admission No. 8-9.) Finally, Defendant Casillas admits that the affirmative
defenses asserted in the Answer lack merit and evidentiary support. (Id.
at Request for Admission No. 10.)
Likewise, the admissions served
on Defendant Jonathan and Janelle admit they were the owners of the vehicle
driven by Defendant Casillas at the time of the subject accident and that they failed
to exercise reasonable care in allowing Defendant Casillas to drive the
vehicle. (Id. at Requests for Admission Nos. 2-4.) Jonathan and Janelle
also admit that this failure of ordinary care was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $8,586.00. (Id. at Requests for
Admission Nos. 4-7.) Finally, Defendants Jonathan and Janelle also admit that
the affirmative defenses asserted in the Answer lack merit and evidentiary
support. (Id. at Requests for Admission No. 8.)
By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served
Defendants with the Requests 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 Defendants have not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint in the
Answer.
Conclusion
Therefore, Plaintiff State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
against Defendants Alejandro Casillas, Jr., Janelle Zenteno and Jonathan Fabian
Zenteno is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.