Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV41164, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV41164    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On November 14, 2019, plaintiff Johnathan Matthew Lugo (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Lorena Vargas, filed this action against defendants City of El Monte (“City”), Sharine Wei (“Wei”), and El Monte City School District (“School District”).  Plaintiff alleges that he was kicked, struck, and otherwise assaulted, battered, and emotionally and physically and abused by Wei on March 4, 2019, and at other times during the period of August 2018 to March 4, 2019.  (Compl., ¶¶ 10-11.)  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, battery, negligence, and false imprisonment.  

          On April 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved.

On September 9, 2022, School District and Wei (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

          The motion is unopposed.

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

          Defendants request the Court judicially notice Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant’s requests for admission, Defendant’s motion to deem admitted, and the notice of ruling granting Defendant’s motion to deem admitted as recorsd of the court.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)  The request is GRANTED.

IV.     DISCUSSION

          “[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.”  (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)  Requests for admissions “differs fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The purpose of the admissions procedure . . . is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’  Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.”  [Citations.]  Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contrary evidence.  [Citation.]”  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.)

Defendants argue judgment on the pleadings is appropriate because Plaintiff cannot establish they acted negligently, caused the incident or Plaintiff’s injuries, or that Plaintiff was harmed.  School District served Requests for Admission (Set One) on Plaintiff.  The requests for admission asked Plaintiff to admit that Defendants were not negligent at the time of any alleged incident, that Plaintiff was not injured, that Defendants were not a substantial factor in causing him harm.  (Defs.’ RJN, Ex. 2.)  On August 19, 2022, these requests for admission were deemed admitted.  (Defs.’ RJN, Exs. 3-4.) 

Pursuant to Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.44th 71, 83, when ruling on a demurrer (or, by logical extension, a motion for judgment on the pleadings), the Court can take judicial notice of a party’s discovery responses that directly contradict the allegations of the complaint; this is true so long as the party whose responses are being relied upon has personal knowledge of the facts asserted therein.  

Plaintiff, in this case, has personal knowledge of whether Defendants were negligent or he suffered any injuries.  Because the admissions propounded on him were deemed admitted, the Court finds this is sufficient to support a finding that the complaint, as a matter of law, lacks merit.  The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore granted.

V.      CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

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.