Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV30481, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30481    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiffs Jose R. Torres and Catherine Torres (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant) based on injuries Plaintiffs allege they sustained as a result of a bus versus vehicle collision.  Defendant moves for judgment on the pleading on Plaintiffs’ complaint.  Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition. 

ANALYSIS

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, but may be made after the time to demur has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).)  “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1013.)  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.” (Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.)

Plaintiffs assert a single cause of action for negligence against Defendant, alleging Defendant’s bus was driving at an excessive speed, and in a reckless and careless manner, causing the bus to lose control and smash into Plaintiffs’ parked vehicle while Plaintiffs were inside the vehicle. 

The basic elements of an actionable negligence claim are: (1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of that duty; (3) and harm to the plaintiff caused by the breach. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot state a cause of action for negligence against Defendant.  Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs cannot establish Defendant was negligent for or caused the incident, and Plaintiffs cannot show they suffered any damages based on the Court ordered admitted matters.  On July 1, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in Defendant’s Request for Admissions per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deemed admitted the matters specified in the Request for Admissions regarding Plaintiff Jose Torres.  (See Minute Order July 1, 2022.) 

            But consideration of the admitted matters in analyzing Defendant’s motion requires the Court to take judicial notice of such admitted matters which the Court declines for two reasons. 

            First, Defendant failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l) [“Any request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must comply with rule 3.1306(c)”].)  Second, Defendant failed in the notice of motion to refer or cite to a request for judicial notice of the admitted matters in support of the motion.  These procedural deficiencies cannot be ignored in light of the magnitude of the relief sought through Defendant’s motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as procedurally defective.  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.