Case Number: SC122082    Hearing Date: July 30, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

JULY 30, 2014 CALENDAR No: 6

SC122082 — SHIBAKURA v. AMERICAN BAG DESIGN, et al.

CROSS-DEFENDANT RAY FINANCIAL’S DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS- COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she was employed by American Bag Design and Eun Sook Choi (“Defendants”) and that during the course and scope of her employment, she was involved in an automobile accident – and was uninsured for that accident due to Defendants’ failure to pay Mercury Insurance the premium due for Plaintiff’s coverage. Defendants filed a cross-complaint against, inter alia, moving party Ray Financial & Insurance Services (“Ray”). The thrust of the claims against Ray for negligence, equitable indemnity, and breach of contract is that Ray failed to properly mail its billing statements, which resulted in the failure to pay and the lapse of coverage. Ray demurs to all three claims (which claims are misnumbered in the moving papers), asserting that Defendants are not the real parties in interest (viz., Plaintiff is) and lack standing to bring the claims.

The Court will overrule the demurrers for the reasons well-stated in the opposition brief and succinctly summarized at 10:12-16 thereof. See generally, Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ Ins. Services, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 401, 432 (“Subrogation arises when one party (the subrogee) indemnifies or pays the principal debtor’s obligation to the creditor or claimant (the subrogor)….The subrogee succeeds to the claimant’s position or rights against the principal debtor or obligor. By undertaking to indemnify or pay the principal debtor’s obligation to the creditor or claimant, the ‘subrogee’ is equitably subrogated to the claimant (or ‘subrogor’), and succeeds to the subrogor’s rights against the obligor”) (internal citations and some internal quotations omitted); American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 598 (equitable indemnity is an equitable doctrine that apportions responsibility among tortfeasors responsible for the same indivisible injury on a comparative fault basis).

To put it simply: under the specific facts pled in the cross-complaint, Defendants do have standing to bring the three claims at issue.

Demurrers are overruled. Answer is to be served and filed on or before August 15, 2014.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re-set for September 19, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

OTHER MATTERS

Defendants’ counsel utilized footnotes presented in a type size violative of CRC 2.104. This Department has approximately 500 active cases and is presented with thousands of pages each week; the Rule of Court on font size takes on added significance in this context.

All counsel should note that it is the better practice to refrain from fax-filing documents. Fax-filed documents are often less legible than documents filed in person or by mail, as was the case with the numerous documents reviewed by the Court in connection with today’s hearing. There is the difficulty in losing pages either in transmission or once the document arrives. Faxed documents lack the exhibit tabs required by CRC 3.1110(f). Further, in light of the budget crisis, there is a significant delay in receiving fax filed documents in the courtroom. The parties have the option of over-night delivery, faxing to an attorney service with instructions to file the document (after attaching any required tabs) directly in the courtroom, or continuing to file by fax in the clerk’s office. Parties electing the last option need to understand that the court laid off 320+ persons 2 years ago and terminated approximately 540 more positions in June 2013. The result is an incredibly short-staffed clerk’s office; and documents faxed seem to get even less priority than documents personally filed.

NOTICE

______ shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312