IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ANGELA MARIE HERRERA, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC15014    Hearing Date: October 15, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Thu., October 15, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME:  IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. v. Herrera, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC15014 COMP. FILED: 12-18-18

NOTICE: NO (con’t hearing) DISC. C/O: 11-03-20

  MOTION C/O: 11-18-20

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (x2)

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company’s Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.  

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 9, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 9, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background & Discussion

On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for subrogation and indebtedness against Defendants Angela Marie Herrera (“Angela”) and Timothy John Herrera (“Timothy”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On February 1, 2019, Defendant Timothy filed an Answer, in pro per, and on February 15, 2019, Defendant Angela filed her Answer, in pro per.

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motions”), one for each Defendant.

At the initial July 28, 2020 hearing, the Court found that the Motions were not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439. (7/28/20 Minute Order.) The Court noted that the insufficiency of party’s meet and confer efforts are not grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings, but that did not mean Plaintiff’s counsel was free to wholly ignore the requirement. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to meet and confer with Defendants and to file a declaration attesting to such efforts. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of the order and continued hearing. (Id.)

To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not filed any declaration as requested or a proof of service demonstrating it gave Defendants notice of this hearing. Thus, the Motions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

II. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company’s Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are PLACED OFF CALENDAR. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC15014    Hearing Date: July 28, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., July 28, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. v. Herrera, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC15014 COMP. FILED: 12-18-18

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 11-03-20

MOTION C/O: 11-18-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (x2)

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company’s Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are CONTINUED to OCTOBER 15, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for subrogation and indebtedness against Defendants Angela Marie Herrera (“Angela”) and Timothy John Herrera (“Timothy”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant Timothy and Defendant Angela separately filed an Answer, in pro per, on February 1, 2019, and February 15, 2019, respectively.

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motions”), one for each Defendant. To date, no oppositions have been filed.

II. 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.)

When the moving party is a Plaintiff, he or she must demonstrate that the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).)

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.)

III. Discussion

A. Meet and Confer Requirement

As an initial matter, Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 439. Section 439 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion for judgment on the pleading pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) (Emphasis added.) The parties must meet and confer at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the moving party must file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not indicate that he met and conferred with Defendants, or that there was even an attempt to do so. (Motions, Schwarz Decl., ¶¶ 1-3.) Although a determination that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings, that does not mean Plaintiff’s counsel can wholly ignore the requirement. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer with Defendants and file a declaration attesting to such efforts.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company’s Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are CONTINUED to OCTOBER 15, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.