STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOSHUA BAILEY

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 19STLC04442 Hearing Date: October 14, 2021 Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS:\r\n MOTION\r\nFOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING\r\nPARTY: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual\r\nAutomobile Insurance Company

\r\n\r\n

RESP.\r\nPARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual\r\nAutomobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against\r\nDefendant Joshua Bailey is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of\r\nService Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 16/21\r\nDay Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SUMMARY\r\nOF COMPLAINT: Action for automobile\r\nsubrogation.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION: Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings with respect\r\nto the Complaint. The Answer does not allege any matter that would constitute a\r\nvalid affirmative defense and the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the\r\nRequests for Admission (Set One) Admitted against Defendant. As such, all\r\nallegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and causes of actions have been\r\ndeemed admitted and true.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OBJECTION: The meet and confer effort was not adequate.\r\nDefense counsel has been unable to locate Defendant and is willing to offer the\r\nfull policy amount in settlement. Alternatively, the motion should be continued\r\nto allow defense counsel additional time to locate Defendant.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: Plaintiff adequately met and conferred and\r\nthe parties discussed settlement of the action prior to filing this Motion.\r\nThat Defendant abandoned this action is not grounds for escaping judgment.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual\r\nAutomobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for\r\nautomobile subrogation against Defendant Joshua Bailey (“Defendant”) on May 9,\r\n2019. Defendant filed an Answer on July 1, 2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 23, 2020, the Court\r\ngranted Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted\r\nagainst Defendant. (Minute Order, 09/23/20.) Plaintiff then filed the instant\r\nMotion for Judgment on the Pleadings on June 14, 2021. Defendant filed an\r\nopposition on September 30, 2021 and Plaintiff replied on October 6, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The standard for ruling on a\r\nmotion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable\r\nto a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with\r\nmatters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to\r\njudgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian\r\nv. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v.\r\nCalifornia Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory\r\njudicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered\r\nwithout notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial\r\nnotice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and\r\nauthorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be\r\nsupported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d\r\n221, 236.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

While a statutory motion for\r\njudgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n438, et seq. must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, there is no\r\nsuch requirement for a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to\r\nthe common law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439 (moving party must file declaration\r\ndemonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least\r\nfive days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Motion is accompanied by a\r\nmeet and confer declaration demonstrating that the parties discussed resolution\r\nof this action in light of Plaintiff’s intention to seek judgment on the\r\npleadings. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A.) Defendant’s opposition does not\r\ndemonstrate that the meet and confer was inadequate simply because Plaintiff\r\nwas unwilling to accept defense counsel’s settlement offer. (See Opp.,\r\nMitrovich Decl., ¶4.) Nor does the Court find defense counsel’s inability to\r\nlocate Defendant grounds for continuing the hearing date or denying the Motion.\r\nDefense counsel had raised this argument in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to\r\nDeem Requests for Admission Admitted and the Court had denied the same. The\r\nCourt noted at the time of that hearing, “[t]his action was filed in May 2019\r\nand defense counsel has had 13 months to locate Defendant prior to the filing\r\nof the instant Motion.” (Minute Order, 09/23/20.) It has now been an additional\r\neleven months and defense counsel makes no showing that they are any closer to\r\nlocating Defendant. (Opp., Mitrovich Decl., ¶4.) Whether the judgment is\r\n“uncollectable” as defense counsel contends is not grounds to pre-emptively\r\ndeny the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff submits a Request for\r\nJudicial Notice of Defendant’s Answer filed on July 1, 2019 and the Court’s\r\norder of September 23, 2020 deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted. The\r\ncourt takes judicial notice of the filing of the Answer and order deeming the\r\nadmissions admitted pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision\r\n(d). (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp.\r\n(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc.\r\n(1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549) (holding that the court may take judicial notice\r\nof matters that cannot be reasonably controverted, including “admissions and\r\nconcessions.”).) The admissions in the Requests directly contradict the general\r\ndenial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In particular, the admissions\r\nstate that at the time of the subject motor vehicle accident, Defendant failed\r\nto drive with reasonable care. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B, Request for Admission No.\r\n2.) Defendant also admits he was the sole cause of the accident with\r\nPlaintiff’s insured, was 100 percent at fault for the accident, caused\r\nPlaintiff’s insured to incur damages, and as a result caused Plaintiff to incur\r\ndamages. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 3-7.) Finally, the\r\nadmissions admit that Defendant caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $13,660.21and\r\nDefendant’s affirmative defenses lack merit and evidentiary support. (Id.\r\nat Request for Admission Nos. 7-8.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served\r\nDefendant with requests for admission that effectively sought the admission of\r\nthe truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The\r\nadmissions establish that the facts upon which Plaintiff based its Complaint\r\nand that Defendant has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual\r\nAutomobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against\r\nDefendant Joshua Bailey is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

"

Case Number: 19STLC04442    Hearing Date: September 23, 2020    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Bailey, et al

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Defendant Joshua Bailey is GRANTED. DEFENDANT JOSHUA BAILEY IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Admissions on Defendant Joshua Bailey (“Defendant”). (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A.)  Despite providing an extension of the time to serve responses, to date, Plaintiff has not received any verified responses to the discovery requests propounded on Defendant. (Id. at pp. 1:24-2:2.) As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Defendant as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on June 12, 2020.

Defendant filed an oppostion on September 10, 2020.

Discussion

Defendant has not provided verified responses to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff on October 15, 2019. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Despite Defendant’s opposing argument that the Court exercise its discretion to deny the Motion and request for sanctions, no legal authority grants this Court the power to ignore the express legislative mandate:

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

. . .

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 (emphasis added).) This action was filed in May 2019 and defense counsel has had 13 months to locate Defendant prior to the filing of the instant Motion. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted.

The Court also finds the failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. In ignoring communications from defense counsel, Defendant has willfully ignored his obligations under the Discovery Code. (See Opp., Zaiderman Decl., ¶¶2-5.) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030 and 2033.280, and have been properly noticed. Sanctions are granted against Defendant in the amount of $460.00, based on two hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Id. at p. 2:6-9.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Defendant Joshua Bailey is GRANTED. DEFENDANT JOSHUA BAILEY IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.