Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV31221, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31221    Hearing Date: March 14, 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

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff) brought an insurance subrogation claim against Defendant Jiao Li (Defendant) based on a motor vehicle collision which purportedly resulted in damage to Hoa Du (Du)’s vehicle.  Du has an insurance policy with Plaintiff.  Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleading on the Complaint in favor of Plaintiff.  Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Under Evidence Code section 451, “[j]udicial notice shall be taken of the following: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution…(f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. ” (Evid. Code, § 451, subds. (a), (f).)  Under Evidence Code section 452, “[j]udicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state. (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States (d) Record of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States…(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdictions of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capably of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (a)-(d), (g), (h).)

Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of the following items: (1) Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted; and (3) The Court’s December 9, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted. 

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d)(1), the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed request for judicial notice as to the abovementioned items.

ANALYSIS

1.     STANDARD - MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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.) 

2.     NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION

Plaintiff argues the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted, removes any issue raised by Defendant under a general denial or affirmative defense in his Answer.  The underlying liability alleged against Defendant in Plaintiff’s subrogation claim is based on a negligence cause of action.  "In order to state a cause of action for negligence, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to show a legal duty on the part of the defendant to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury." (Bellah v. Greenson (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 614, 619.) 

“[A]dmissions or concessions of matters which cannot be reasonably be controverted are properly considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  [citation omitted].”  (Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4^th 540, 549.)  Here, as a result of the Court’s December 9, 2022, order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted, Defendant has admitted to the following:

·       At the time of the incident Defendant was driving a motor vehicle

·       At the time of the incident Defendant failed to drive with reasonable care.

·       Defendant’s driving was the sole cause of the collision with Plaintiff’s insured vehicle.

·       Defendant was 100% at fault in causing the collision.

·       As a result of the collision, Defendant caused the insured to incur damages.

·       As a result of the collision, Defendant caused the insured to incur damages of at least $28,490.97.

·       Plaintiff as the insurer for the insured has been damaged in the amount of at least $28,490.97, the amount which it paid its insured on the claim its insured made for his/her losses arising from incident plus any other uncovered losses the insured suffered and assigned to Plaintiff.

·       The affirmative defenses Defendant asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.

(See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit 2; see also Minute Order, December 9, 2022.)

Absent the filing of a motion to withdraw admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, subdivision (a), Defendant’s foregoing admissions cannot reasonably be controverted and can therefore be used in evaluating the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.     

Defendant’s admissions establish the duty, causation, and damages elements of the negligence claim, and further negate any affirmative defenses he alleged in his answer.  It is deemed admitted that Defendant was driving without reasonable care at the time of the incident, was fully at fault for causing the collision, and thus caused the insured to incur damages.  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit 2; see also Minute Order, December 9, 2022.)  It is further deemed admitted that Defendant’s alleged affirmative defenses are without merit.  (Ibid.)  Thus, it is deemed admitted that Defendant is liable for the damages at issue.

Since it is deemed admitted that Defendant was negligent, said negligence caused the incident and damages at issue, and any affirmative defenses are invalid, the Court can order judgment for Plaintiff based solely on its Complaint.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.