Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV30481, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30481    Hearing Date: February 2, 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 oppose the motion.

On January 12, 2023, the original hearing date for the instant motion, the Court continued Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to allow Counsel for Defendant to file and serve a Request for Judicial Notice on or by January 20, 2023.  The Court notes that Defendant filed its Request for Judicial Notice with the Court on January 17, 2023.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The Court grants Defendant’s requests for judicial notice.

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 collide 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 are precluded from pleading Defendant was negligent, caused the incident, nor that Plaintiff suffered any damages due to Plaintiffs’ admissions.  

On July 1, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deemed admitted the matters specified in the RFA regarding Plaintiffs.  (See Minute Orders filed July 1, 2022 & July 19, 2022.)  The following admissions are deemed admitted by Plaintiffs:

1. Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT ("INCIDENT" shall include the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged occurrence giving rise to this action or proceeding), immediately before the METRO BUS ("METRO BUS" refers to the Metro bus #3928 that was involved in this INCIDENT) and your VEHICLE ("VEHICLE" refers to the vehicle you were a passenger in at the time of the INCIDENT) made contact, the driver's side door of your VEHICLE was open.

2. Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, immediately before the METRO BUS and your VEHICLE made contact, the driver's side door of your VEHICLE extended into the number two lane of the street your VEHICLE was on.

3. Admit that immediately before the INCIDENT, you were in the process of opening your driver's side door.

4. Admit that immediately before the INCIDENT, your left foot was out of the VEHICLE.

5. Admit that as the METRO BUS was passing by your VEHICLE, you continued to open the car door.

6. Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, the part of your VEHICLE that made contact with the METRO BUS was its driver's side door.

7. Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, the part of the METRO BUS your VEHICLE made contact with was its rear right side.

8. Admit that YOU ("YOU" includes Responding Party and any and all PERSONS acting or purporting to act on his/her/its behalf, including, but not limited to, any and all agents, officers, directors, partners, managers, shareholders, employees, independent contractors, insurers, attorneys, investigators, experts, and engineers) ("PERSON" means all individuals and entities of any nature whatsoever and includes, in the plural as well as in the singular, any natural person, firm, association, partnership, joint venture, corporation, subdivision or part thereof, or any other entity, including all representatives of any such PERSON or PERSONS. The masculine pronoun shall also include the feminine) do not have any photographs of the other vehicles that were allegedly hit by the METRO BUS at the time of the INCIDENT, as set forth in your Complaint.

    

   (Sic – There are two RFA No. 8)  Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, your driver's side door was extended into the traffic lane occupied by the METRO BUS.

    

9. Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, your vehicle was occupying portions of two different traffic lanes.

10. Admit that at the moment the METRO BUS and your VEHICLE came into contact you were in the process of opening the driver's side door on your VEHICLE.

11. Admit that the METRO BUS was still within its traffic lane when contact was made with your VEHICLE'S door.

12. Admit that your VEHICLE was parked more than 12 inches away from the curb when the INCIDENT occurred.

13. Admit that YOU have no evidence to suggest that the driver of the METRO BUS did anything wrong in the INCIDENT.

14. Admit that the cause of the INCIDENT was you opening your door into the traffic lane.

15. Admit that the INCIDENT did not cause you to have any injuries.

     

    (Request for Admissions, Nos. 1-15.)

     

                In particular, the Court finds that admissions number 14 and 15 establish that Plaintiffs are precluded from asserting (1) Defendant caused the accident, because Plaintiffs admit that the act  of opening their vehicle door in the traffic lane caused the accident, and (2) the accident resulted in Plaintiffs’ injuries because Plaintiffs admit the accident did not cause them to have any injuries.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ are unable to plead the necessary ultimate facts to support  the requisite elements of causation and damages to plead a cognizable negligence cause of action against Defendant. 

     

                In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the admissions advanced by Defendant in support of the motion are inconsistent with previous theories of liability Defendant has advanced in earlier stages of litigation.  Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant is judicially estopped from taking inconsistent positions in the action.  “Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or some earlier proceeding. The doctrine serves a clear purpose: to protect the integrity of the judicial process. This obviously contemplates something other than the permissible practice of simultaneously advancing in the same action inconsistent claims or defenses which can then, under appropriate judicial control, be evaluated as such by the same tribunal, thus allowing an internally consistent final decision to be reached.”  (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181 [cleaned up].) 

     

                Plaintiffs reference “Separate Statement(s) that Opposes Each Material Fact Raised by Defendant LACMTA.”  However, it is unclear to the Court as to what inconsistent positions have been taken by Defendant.  Plaintiffs seem to be describing evidence they submitted in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  But the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment due to Defendant failing to meet its burden of production; the Court did not reach the merits of the motion.  (See Minute Order filed September 13, 2022.)  Moreover, the Court, in reviewing Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, finds Defendant is taking consistent positions, in which it argued that  “As the MTA bus approached the location where Plaintiffs' vehicle was parked, Plaintiff Jose Torres opened his car door in order to exit the vehicle,”  “Plaintiff Jose Torres opened his car door when the bus was only 1-2 seconds from the rear of Plaintiffs' vehicle,” and “As the bus continued forward, Plaintiff Jose Torres continued opening his door until it extended into the number two lane.” (See Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, Nos. 5-7, filed June 28, 2022.)  Such “material facts” comport with Request for Admissions Nos. 3, 5, 8, 10 and 14.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ argument that judicial estoppel should be applied to prevent Defendant from taking inconsistent positions in support of the instant motion to be misplaced. 

     

    CONCLUSION AND ORDER

     

    Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings per Code of Civil Procedure section 438 without leave to amend. [1]

     

    Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.