Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV09641, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)
Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
Case Number: 20STCV09641 Hearing Date: July 21, 2023 Dept: 29
HEARINGS SET FOR JULY 21, 2023 ARE CONTINUED, ON THE COURTS MOTION, TO JULY 24, 2023 AT 1:30 PM.
THERE ARE TWO MOTIONS ON CALENDAR
AS TO THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
TENTATIVE: The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.
Legal StandardA motion for summary judgment “shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(3).) “A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)
Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.)
Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (2) the unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (3) the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (4) the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice, (5) the addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or if the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case, (6) a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts, or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Ibid.)
In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider all the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination. Courts may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)
Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)
Discussion
Defendants reserved a hearing date for their motion for summary judgment in April 2023. (Arshansky Decl., ¶ 5.) At that time, the earliest available hearing date was on August 16, 2024. (Ibid.)
Defendants now seek a continuance of the trial date so that their motion for summary judgment may be heard at least 30 days before trial. Plaintiff has filed no opposition. The Court finds good cause for the requested relief and grants the motion to continue trial.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. Trial is continued until October __, 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving parties to give notice.
AS TO THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
TENTATIVE: Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.
Background
On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff Juan P. Angeo filed a complaint against Defendants Secure Transportation Company, Inc. and Crystal C. Hernandez, alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence, stemming from a vehicle collision that occurred on March 6, 2018.
On March 17, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to deem admitted requests for admission served on Plaintiff. The truth of the matters in the request for admissions, set one, served on Plaintiff were deemed admitted.
On June 16, 2023, Defendants filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. No opposition has been filed.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendants seek judicial notice of the following items: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint; (2) The Court order granting Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and establishing that all matters specified in Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted and true by Plaintiff; and (3) Defendants’ motion to deem requests for admission admitted, with the Requests for Admission attached.
A court may take judicial notice of the “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state ....” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Thus, unquestionably, a “court may judicially notice its own records and proceedings in the same case. [Citations.]” (City etc. of San Francisco v. Carraro (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 509, 527.) Pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
Legal Standard
A defendant may bring a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B).) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) “Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.” (Ibid.)
“In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; see also Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) “When a court evaluates a complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable inferences from the facts pled.” (Duval v. Board of Tr. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.) “In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings normally does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. (Ibid.) “In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Gami v. Mullikin Medical Ctr. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876.)
Discussion
Meet and Confer
The motion is accompanied by the declaration of Alan Arshansky that satisfies the meet and confer requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. § 439(a)(2).)
Merits
Defendant argues Plaintiff’s complaint for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants fails due to an absence of all of the elements. The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)
The Court has taken judicial notice that on March 17, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted requests for admission served on Plaintiff, and that the truth of the matters in the request for admissions, set one, served on Plaintiff were deemed admitted. Pursuant to this Court’s Order, Plaintiff has admitted as true Uber’s Request for Admission No. 11, that Plaintiff was the sole cause of the incident. (Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. C.) Plaintiff further admitted as true Uber’s Request for Admission No. 16, confirming that Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing that existed prior to the incident. (Ibid.)
“[A]dmissions or concessions of matters which cannot be reasonably be controverted are properly considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Evans v. California Trailer Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549.) In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court “may consider matters which may be judicially noticed, including a party’s admissions or concessions which can not reasonably be controverted.” (Pang v. Beverly Hospital (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989-90.) As the appellate court in Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 604-05 stated, “The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court.” Therefore, absent the filing of a motion to withdraw admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300(a), Plaintiff’s admissions here cannot reasonably be controverted and can be considered by the Court in ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Plaintiff’s admissions are inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint as to the elements of the motor vehicle negligence cause of action. If the “proponent of the demurrer has shown that he has conclusively negated a necessary element of plaintiffs’ cause of action, thereby demonstrating that there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the pleadings,” then the demurrer must be sustained. (Sher v. Leiderman (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 867, 885-86.) As discussed above, the standard as to a demurrer equally applies to a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Since Plaintiff admitted (or was deemed to have admitted) that he was the sole cause of the incident at issue, Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant for negligence fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Note: once the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to deny a party’s request to withdraw the motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
