Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV04223, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04223    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

On February 3, 2022, plaintiff Jose Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Sherry Litt (“Defendant”) for negligence pursuant to Labor Code section 3706, et seq.  Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while performing work for Defendant that required a permit, including construction and new framing.  Plaintiff also alleges Defendant failed to maintain worker’s compensation insurance coverage for Plaintiff and that he was injured when he fell 20 feet while reinstalling a window.  Plaintiff argues that he is a statutory employee and can recover for negligence under Labor Code section 3706. 

On June 3, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that Plaintiff’s sole remedy was through worker’s compensation.  The Court continued the hearing so that Defendant could submit additional evidence and Plaintiff could file a response. 

On July 8, 2022, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration as well as a request for judicial notice. 

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 judicially notice a worker’s compensation claim filed on November 12, 2020, as well as the underlying complaint in this action.  The request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

          In a supplemental request for judicial notice, Defendant requests the Court judicially notice an answer and a notice pursuant to Labor Code section 3755 filed by California Automobile Insurance Company with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) on July 7, 2022. 

IV.     DISCUSSION

Subject to exceptions, workers’ compensation is the¿only¿remedy¿available to injured employees¿and their dependents¿against the employer or against any fellow employee responsible for injuries “arising out of and in the course of employment.” (Lab. Code §§ 3600-3602, 5300; see¿Shoemaker v. Myers¿(1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 18.)  There are some situations in which the injured employee may maintain a civil action against his or her employer.  These include statutory exceptions such as: 1) physical assault by the employer; 2) aggravation of injury by the employer’s fraudulent concealment; 3) products liability cases, 4) power press guards; and 5) the employer is uninsured.  (See Lab. Code §§ 3602, 3706, 4553.) 

Defendant argues judgment on the pleadings is warranted because Plaintiff’s sole remedy is through the workers’ compensation system. 

According to Labor Code section 3755, “[i]f the employer is insured against liability for compensation, and if after the suffering of any injury the insurer causes to be served upon any compensation claimant a notice that it has assumed and agreed to pay any compensation to the claimant for which the employer is liable, such employer shall be relieved from liability for compensation to such claimant upon the filing of a copy of such notice with the appeals board. The insurer shall, without further notice, be substituted in place of the employer in any proceeding theretofore or thereafter instituted by such claimant to recover such compensation, and the employer shall be dismissed therefrom.” 

Defendant has submitted a copy of the notice filed before the WCAB which states that California Automobile Insurance Company shall pay Plaintiff workers compensation benefits on behalf of Defendant.  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

V.      CONCLUSION

Defendant’s 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.