Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV46927, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46927    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 23, 2021, plaintiff Pamela Milich (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Caregiver Services & Homecare, Inc. dba 1Heart Caregivers (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as “One Heart Caregivers”) and Ireneo Santos Borromeo (“Borromeo”) (erroneously sued as “Rene Borromeo”) asserting causes of action for sexual battery, elder abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of unfit employee, and sexual harassment.

On February 9, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings against the sole cause of action asserted against it for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of unfit employee.

II.          EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff’s objections to the Declaration of Artin Avetisove and Exhibits B and C are OVERRULED.

Defendant’s objections to the Declaration of Anthony Nehme are OVERRULED.  

III.        LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).)¿ Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply.¿ (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1012.)¿ “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.”¿ (Rolfe v. Cal. Transp. Comm’n (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 239, 242; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).)¿ “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.”¿ (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013.)¿ In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.”¿ (Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.)

IV.        DISCUSSION

“[A]ny matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action, unless the court has permitted withdrawal or amendment of that admission.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 978-979 (italics omitted).)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s admissions in discovery contradict the allegations in her Complaint and that judgment should be entered in its favor. Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s unqualified admissions to six requests for admission which ask Plaintiff to “[a]dmit that YOU do have any facts in support” of various contentions, including that Defendant is vicariously liable for Borromeo’s intentional torts or that Defendant negligently hired and/or retained or supervised Borromeo. (Avetisove Decl., Exs. B-C.) Since Plaintiff admits that she indeed has facts in support of these contentions, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED because the admissions do not contradict the allegations of the complaint. Even if Defendant may have intended to ask Plaintiff to admit that she does not have any facts, the text of the request for admission reads otherwise.

Defendant also argues that it cannot be vicariously liable for Borromeo’s intentional torts and cites to Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291. This argument misses the point of the Complaint, which asserts that Defendant is liable for its own negligence in hiring, retaining, or supervising Borromeo. 

V.          CONCLUSION

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.