Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00036641-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023

09/08/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00036641-CU-MC-CTL ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BRICKELL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Kimberly Brickell's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Defendant's motion to strike is DENIED.

Defendant's request for judicial notice of the existence of the complaint, jury verdict, and notice of entry of judgment in Brickell v. Medeiros, et al. (Case No. 37-2019-00017606-CU-PA-NC) is granted.

'A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.' (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) First, the court previously overruled Defendant's demurrer to the same causes of action that are the subject of Defendant's present motion. (ROA #25.) The only difference from that ruling to now is that a verdict has been reached and judgment entered in the related case. However, the same issues still exist; namely, that the settlement agreement that forms the basis of Plaintiff's claims in this case was not, according to the complaint, between Defendant and Joseph Medeiros. Rather, the agreement was between Defendant and Plaintiff, and Mr. Medeiros was at best a third-party beneficiary. Whether, as a factual matter, this is true (i.e., privity existed between Plaintiff and Mr. Medeiros such that the rights related to the purported settlement agreement were in fact held by him as well and he was or would have been a party to the agreement) is not suitable for adjudication at the pleading stage. Similarly, whether res judicata may act as bar to Plaintiff's claims in this case (i.e., the issue of the settlement agreement should have been raised and litigated in the underlying case) is a factual issue that is not suitable for resolution at the pleading stage.

Second, Plaintiff's declaratory relief cause of action can survive a pleading challenge. Plaintiff is permitted to plead claims in the alternative, and an actual controversy exists concerning whether a contract between Defendant and Plaintiff exists. Again, the claims as framed by the complaint are between Plaintiff and Defendant and do not involve Mr. Medeiros. Whether a contract exists that resolves duties owed by Plaintiff to Defendant and vice versa, and whether this contract was breached if it exists, are matters properly resolved in connection with a fact-based motion (i.e., summary judgment) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2960315  24 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BRICKELL [IMAGED]  37-2022-00036641-CU-MC-CTL or trial.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to strike are denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2960315  24