ANCHOR GENERAL INSURANCE CO. VS GLEN BILL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC14026    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 26

Anchor General Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, et al.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Code Civ. Proc., § 438; Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Anchor General Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED against Defendant Glen Bill Hernandez.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DEAULT JUDGMENT / DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT FRANCYS CORNEJO VILLATA SET FOR APRIL 16, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Francys Cornejo Villalta (“Defendant Villalta”) and Glen Bill Hernandez (“Defendant Hernandez”) on November 14, 2018. On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff entered Defendant Villalta’s default.

On April 19, 2019, Defendant Hernandez filed his Answer in pro per. On October 1, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Hernandez. On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, which is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, for judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Motion, Reese Decl., pp. 1:22-2:2 and Exh. A.) 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 Defendant Hernandez’s Answer filed on April 19, 2018 and the Court’s order of October 1, 2019 deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted. 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 Defendant Hernandez’s Answer.

In particular, the admissions admit that on the date of the accident that is the subject of this action, Defendant Hernandez was the owner of the vehicle that collided with the vehicle of Plaintiff’s insured. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B, Request for Admission Nos. 1-2.) The admissions also admit that Defendant Hernandez failed to exercise reasonable care by permitting Defendant Villalta to drive the vehicle and that such lack of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing the motor vehicle accident that damaged Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 3-4.) The admissions also admit that Defendant Hernandez’s vehicle was uninsured, and Defendant Hernandez caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $18,552.46. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-8.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendant Hernandez with discovery requests that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. These admissions establish the facts in Plaintiff’s Complaint and that Defendant Hernandez has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Therefore, Plaintiff Anchor General Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED against Defendant Glen Bill Hernandez.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DEAULT JUDGMENT / DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT FRANCYS CORNEJO VILLATA SET FOR APRIL 16, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party to give notice.