Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01124, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV01124 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: 8
¿¿
HEARING DATE: March 26, 2024¿¿
¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01124
¿¿
CASE NAME: Vinetta Walker-Ngangu
v. Kohl’s, Inc., et al.
¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Kohl’s, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Vinetta Walker-Ngangu (No Opposition)
¿¿
TRIAL DATE: Not
Set.
MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND¿¿
¿¿
A. Factual¿¿
¿¿
On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff, Vinetta
Waller-Ngangu, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Kohl’s Inc., and DOES 1
through 75. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability;
and (2) General Negligence.
On February 22, 2024, this Court GRANTED
Khol’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted.
Now, Defendant Kohl’s files a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff’s entire Complaint on the grounds
that the Requests for Admission being Admitted essentially had deemed admitted
the fact that Plaintiff did not have any facts or evidence in support of her
two causes of action against Kohl’s.
B. Procedural¿¿
¿
On February 28, 2024, Defendant, Kohl’s Inc. filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. To date, no opposition has been filed.
II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Kohl’s,
concurrently with its moving papers, has requested this Court take judicial
notice of the following documents:
1.
Plaintiff VINETTA WALLER-NGANGU’s (Plaintiff)
Complaint in this matter (Exhibit 2);
2.
This Court’s February 22, 2024 Ruling deeming
Kohl’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, as admitted by Plaintiff
3.
The Notice of Ruling Regarding Defendant Kohl’s
Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted served by Kohl’s on
February 28, 2024 (Exhibit 3).
The court GRANTS this request and takes judicial notice of the
above.
III. ANALYSIS
A.
Legal Standard
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.) Matters which are subject
to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be
considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to
permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the
supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.)
The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull
(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)
When the moving party is a defendant, he must demonstrate either
of the following exist:
(i)
The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of
action alleged in the complaint.
(ii)
The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd.
(c)(a)(B)(i)-(ii).)
Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet
and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a
motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.)
B.
Discussion
Premises Liability
Kohl’s argues
that pursuant to Plaintiff’s Response to Requests for Admission, it is entitled
to Judgment on the Pleadings. The necessary elements of a negligence cause of
action based on premises liability are: (1) the defendant's legal duty of care
toward the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's breach of said duty, i.e., a
negligent act or omission; (3) an injury to the plaintiff as a result of the
breach, i.e., proximate or legal cause; and (4) the plaintiff’s
damage. (Pultz v. Holgerson (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1116—1117
(“Pultz”).) “No strict requirements exist for the form of such
allegations,” and the existence of a duty may be inferred where the defendant
is the owner and manager of the premises in question. (Id. at p.
1117.)
In this
Court’s February 22, 2024 minute order, it granted Kohl’s’ Motion to deem
Requests for Admission as Admitted. Kohl’s argues that the requests for
admission render Plaintiff’s claims completely meritless, as the admissions
prove that Kohl’s did not engage in any negligence as the premises liability
claim and that Plaintiff does not have any facts, documents, or witnesses to
support her claim for premises liability against Kohl’s. The admissions also
admit that Plaintiff’s own negligence, or that of a third-party, caused the
incident and that she did not suffer any of the damages claimed. The Court agrees
with Kohl’s’ argument. By having the requests for admission deemed as admitted,
Plaintiff’s causes of action against Kohl’s were destroyed. The judicially
noticed materials prove that Plaintiff admis Kohl’s did not commit any of the
alleged acts undermining the claim for premises liability, and thus, the motion
for judgment on the pleadings must be granted as to this first cause of action.
General Negligence
This Court notes that for the same reasons as
above, and because the requests for admission being deemed as admitted has the
exact same effect on the premises liability cause of action, that the motion
for judgment on the pleadings must also be granted as to the second cause of
action.
IV.
CONCLUSION¿¿
¿¿¿
For the foregoing reasons,
Defendant District’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings generally is GRANTED.
Kohl’s is ordered to give notice of the ruling and to file proof
of service of its notice.¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿