Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV14872, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14872    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

JEROME OVDIN DUBOSE, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

ISRAEL ALEGRIA MORALES, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV14872 

 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 

  

DEPT. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

February 15, 2024 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiff, Jerome Ovdin Dubose (“Plaintiff”) filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC) against defendants, Israel Alegria Morales and the City of Santa Monica (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff sets forth three causes of action for (1) motor vehicle – against all defendants, (2) general negligence – against all defendants, and (3) respondeat superior – against the City of Santa Monica.  

On November 2, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel, and filed proof of service granting the motion thereafter. To date, Plaintiff remains in pro per.  

Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings, arguing their request for admissions were granted, and therefore Plaintiff cannot establish his causes of action against Defendants.   

The motion is unopposed.   

 

II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

  1. Request for Judicial Notice 

In connection with the motion, Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of (1) Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set One served on January 4, 2023, (2) Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set Two served on February 14, 2023, and (3) The Court’s Minute Order of November 6, 2023 granting Defendants’ RFAs, set one and set two, against Plaintiff. The Court notes that the purported Exhibits to the Request for Judicial Notice were not attached to the Declaration of Robert A. Baggs. However, a copy of the Exhibits are found with the moving papers. In the interests of judicial economy, the Court will consider the referenced exhibits provided in the moving papers.  

Evidence Code § 452(d) provides the court may take judicial notice of “Records 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.”  “[A] complaint's allegations may be disregarded when they conflict with judicially noticed discovery responses…,” subject to judges' interpretations of the nature and extent of any discovery admissions.  (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 83.)  It is true that a court may take judicial notice of a party's admissions or concessions, but only in cases where the admission ‘can not reasonably be controverted,’ such as in answers to interrogatories or requests for admission, or in affidavits and declarations filed on the party's behalf.”  (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.) 

In this case, Defendants’ request is unopposed and granted as to each Exhibit.   

 

  1. Analysis 

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 RFAs deemed admitted establish that there is no evidence Defendants acted negligently at any time during the incident, and that Defendants’ conduct was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff any harm. Consequently, the essential elements of Plaintiff’s causes of action are negated by the deemed admissions, and thus fails to state a claim against Defendants for these reasons.   

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.  

 

The burden is on Plaintiff to show in what manner he can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.)  In this case, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion nor has he moved to set aside the deemed admissions. Accordingly, there is no possibility of cure to state a claim against Defendants.  Therefore, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend.  

 

Moving party 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¿¿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 14th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court