Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV29067, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29067    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Ashley Poe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jose Mejahuezo (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about August 3, 2018.   The complaint alleges a single cause of action for negligence against Defendant. 

At this time, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s complaint.  Defendant avers that prior to filing the complaint in this action, Plaintiff settled the claims at issue in this action with this assistance of different counsel.  Defendant asserts Plaintiff signed and agreed to a release of any and all claims relating to the subject August 3, 2018 accident alleged in the complaint.  Defendant contends that after the agreement was signed, the Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, whom Defendant asserts represented Plaintiff before she retained the counsel that assisted her with the release, filed this action on behalf of Plaintiff.  Defendant contends that the signed release by Plaintiff bars this action against Defendant. 

The motion is unopposed. 

2. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

                        a. Judicial Notice

            Defendant requests that judicial notice be taken of the release attached as Exhibit B to the motion.  The request is unopposed and granted.  (Chacon v. Union Pacific Railroad (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 565, 572 [“The existence and contents of a written agreement may be the proper subject of judicial notice if there is no factual dispute that the document is genuine and accurate.”]; see also Ascherman v. General Reinsurance Corp. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 307, 310-11 [In ruling on a demurrer , the court could take judicial notice of a release given by the State Insurance Commissioner, freeing Reinsurance Co. of liability for insolvent insurer's debts.].)

                        b. Meet and Confer

CCP § 439(a) provides that “Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” 

Defendant satisfied this requirement prior to the hearing on this matter.  (Mot. Cavanna Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.)

c. MJOP Standard

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (C.C.P. §438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]”  (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.)  “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. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).)  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).) 

Here, the complaint alleges that on or about August 3, 2018, at “Lauren Canyon blvd” in Los Angeles County, Defendant negligently drove his vehicle as to cause a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle.  (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.)  The release provided by Defendant states in relevant part, “For and in consideration of the sum of $12,700.00 … I/we release and forever discharge Jose Mejiahuezo … from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of any kind … resulting from or in any way related to any bodily injury(ies) arising from an accident that occurred on or about August 3, 2018 at or near Studio City, CA (‘the Subject Accident’).”  (Mot. Exh. B.)  The signature line on the release appears to read, “A. Poe,” but there is no printed name on the release. 

Although Defendant contends that Plaintiff through the release agreed not to bring any lawsuit against Defendant, the release on its face does not contain Plaintiff’s name.  Additionally, while the release and complaint both reference an accident that occurred on August 3, 2018, the release states the relevant accident occurred at or near Studio City, but the complaint alleges the subject accident occurred at Lauren Canyon Blvd.  Accordingly, the Court cannot determine that the release bars Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant as a matter of law. 

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 20^th day of April 2023