Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV10925, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV10925    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

GEVORK GEVORKYAN,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

VIGEN SARKISYAN, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 19STCV10925 (Consolidated w/ 19CHL31609 and 19STCV15421)

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT THE HERTZ CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

August 10, 2022

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff Gevork Gevorkyan filed this action against Defendant The Hertz Corporation for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.  Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, originally scheduled to be heard on June 10, 2022.  On June 10, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to the present date so that the parties could provide supplemental briefing.  Defendant filed a supplemental brief on July 8, 2022.  Plaintiff did not file a response. 

II.      LEGAL STANDARD

“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.  [Citations.]”  (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.)  The court must assume the truth of all properly pleaded material facts and allegations, but not contentions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Wise v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738.)  “A judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant is appropriate when the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).)”  (Kapsimallis v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667, 672.)  “Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  [Citation.]”  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

III.     REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant requests the court take judicial notice of the Bankruptcy Court’s June 10, 2021, Order confirming its Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (“Chapter 11 Plan”), which includes a permanent injunction.  The request is GRANTED.

IV.     DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject of this complaint after the bankruptcy court issued an order approving its Chapter 11 Plan and ordered a permanent injunction against claims asserted against Defendant.  Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to file a proof of claim in bankruptcy court and is now barred from asserting claims against it.

Generally, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a claim within a discharge order is a discharged debt. (28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); [“[T]he district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.”]  “[A] state court may consider the applicability of a bankruptcy discharge when it is raised as a defense to an action.”  (Flores v. Kmart Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1316 [citing Local Loan Co. v. Hunt (1934) 292 U.S. 234, 240, [“the effect of a discharge in bankruptcy is a matter to be determined by any court in which the discharge may be pleaded.”]; In re McGhan (9th Cir.2002) 288 F.3d 1172, 1180; In re Gruntz (9th Cir.2000) 202 F.3d 1074, 1082; In re Lenke (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.2000) 249 B.R. 1, 8.)

The Court acknowledges that Defendant has filed the Plan and the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order, which includes a permanent injunction.  11 USC § 1141 provides that a confirmed plan discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date of such confirmation and binds any creditor, whether or not the claim is impaired under the plan or whether the creditor has accepted the plan.  However, “[g]enerally, if a known contingent creditor is not given formal notice, he is not bound by an order discharging the bankruptcy's obligations. The fact that a creditor has actual knowledge that a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is going forward involving a debtor does not obviate the need for notice.”  (In re Maya Const. Co. (9th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 1395, 1399 [citing New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co. (1953) 344 U.S. 293, 297.) 

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was given notice of Hertz’s bankruptcy on June 18, 2020, but the notice attached as Exhibit B does not identify the deadline to file a proof of claim.  Defendant cites to no legal authority supporting its assertion that it was “incumbent on [Plaintiff] as an unsecured creditor to take the steps to ensure their claim could move forward” and therefore, no notice of the actual claims bar date needed to be given.  (Supp. Mot., 4:10-13.)  In fact, in Chapter 11 bankruptcies, “[t]he burden is on the debtor to cause formal notice to be given; the creditor who is not given notice, even if he has actual knowledge of reorganization proceedings, does not have a duty to investigate and inject himself into the proceedings.”  (In re Maya Const. Co. (9th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 1395, 1399.)  This is in contrast with cases under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, where actual knowledge without notice of the bankruptcy by a creditor will satisfy due process concerns with respect to treatment of its claim.  (In re S.N.A. Nut Co. (BC ND IL 1996) 198 BR 541, 544.) 

Defendant also argues it was not required to give notice under FRBP 2002(a) because “… the clerk, or some other person as the court may direct” must do so.  (Reply, 4:11-19.)  The citation to this rule is unpersuasive to show that Defendant was not required to give notice; it only proves that some person must give notice of the claims bar date.  As Defendant is the debtor and plan proponent, it is reasonable to believe, unless presented with evidence demonstrating otherwise, that the bankruptcy court ordered Defendant to give notice of the claims bar date to all creditors. 

V.      CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.