Case Number: 18STLC06302 Hearing Date: January 22, 2020 Dept: 26

State Farm v. Muro, et al.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendants Veronica Muro, Miguel Angel Marentes, and Ascencion Marentes is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Veronica Muro (“Defendant Muro”), Miguel Angel Marentes and Ascencion Marentes (“the Marentes Defendants”) on April 18, 2018. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Muro’s negligence during the operation of the Marentes’ motor vehicle resulted in damages to Plaintiff’s insured. (Compl., ¶6.) On June 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Muro. On July 1, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against the Marentes Defendants. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendants. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O’Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

While a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438, et seq. must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, there is no such requirement for a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to the common law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439 (moving party must file declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed.)

Discussion

Plaintiff submits a Request for Judicial Notice of Defendants’ Answers filed on October 11, 2018 and November 21, 2018, and the Court’s orders of June 12, 2019 and July 1, 2019. The court takes judicial notice of the deemed admissions. The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549) (holding that the court may take judicial notice of matters that cannot be reasonably controverted, including “admissions and concessions.”).) The admissions in the Requests directly contradict the general denial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendants’ Answers.

In particular, the admissions state that at the time of the accident Defendant Muro failed to drive with reasonable care. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B, Muro Request for Admission No. 4.) They also admit that Defendant Muro was the sole cause of the accident with Plaintiff’s insured, that she caused the Plaintiff’s insured to incur damages as a result, that as a result she caused Plaintiff to incur damages, and the lack of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing the accident that injured Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-8.) The admissions admit that Defendant Muro caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $15,159.12. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 8-9.)

Similarly, the admissions by the Marentes Defendants contradict their Answers. The admissions admit that the Marentes were the registered owner of the vehicle Defendant Muro was driving at the time of the subject accident, and that she was driving the vehicle with their permission. (RJN, Exh. B, Marentes Request for Admission Nos. 1-2.) They further admit that they failed to exercise reasonable care in permitting Defendant Muro’s use of the subject vehicle and that said lack of care was a substantial cause of the subject accident. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 3-4.) Finally, they admit that this failure caused Plaintiff to incur damages from the subject accident in the amount of at least $15,159.12. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-7.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendants with requests for admission that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The admissions here establish that the facts upon which Plaintiff its Complaint and that Defendants have not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.