FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE VS ROBERTO JARAMILLO

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC10585    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: 26

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Jaramillo, et al.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Defendant Elise Aube’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the Cross-Complaint is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Roberto Jamarillo (“Cross-Complainant”). On October 19, 2018, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint for indemnity and apportionment of fault against Cross-Defendant Elise Aube (“Cross-Defendant”). Cross-Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the Cross-Complaint on December 20, 2019. 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.)

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.)

Discussion

The Court finds that the Motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439. (Motion, Kashian Decl., ¶11.) Cross-Defendant contends that Cross-COmplainant fails to allege facts to support a cause of action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for indemnification and apportionment of fault.

1st Cause of Action for Indemnification

Although the Cross-Complaint does not specify the type of indemnification—express, implied or equitable—the allegations make it clear only the equitable kind is at issue. “A right of equitable indemnity can arise only if the prospective indemnitor and indemnitee are mutually liable to another person for the same injury.” (Fremont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1177.) There is no allegation here that the parties are liable to a third party other than Plaintiff. (See Cross-Compl., ¶7.) Plaintiff, however, is only bringing this action as Cross-Defendant’s subrogee and simply stands in her shoes. (See Compl., ¶9; Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1292.) Therefore, there is no “other person” to whom Cross-Defendant is liable. To the extent Cross-Complainant contends Cross-Defendant’s own negligence caused the accident, this is set forth as an affirmative defense and will be resolved via the Complaint. (See Answer, filed 10/19/18, ¶4.)

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate as to the first cause of action.

2nd Cause of Action for Apportionment of Fault

Apportionment of fault similarly requires a separate party to whom the alleged joint-tortfeasors are liable. (See Paragon Real Estate Group of San Francisco, Inc. v. Hansen (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 177, 182.) Therefore, judgment on the pleadings is appropriate as to the second cause of action.

Leave to Amend

There can be no cross-claim against Cross-Defendant for damages Plaintiff incurred as her insurer. Cross-Complainant, therefore, has not shown that leave to amend is proper. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)

Conclusion

Cross-Defendant Elise Aube’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the Cross-Complaint is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.