This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/20/2020 at 09:44:07 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ

Case Summary

On 12/20/2018 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5171

  • Filing Date:

    12/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

GONZALEZ JUAN CARLOS

Cross Defendants

PEREIDA YRIN JANNETE

PEREIRA YRIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

PILLEMER DAVID B.

Defendant Attorney

BECK DWAYNE S.

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Manuel M Magpapian

9/11/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Manuel M Magpapian

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

10/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

10/22/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

12/9/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/10/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/30/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of order

5/12/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of order

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

7/11/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

7/22/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Opposition (name extension) - Notice OPPOSITION BY CROSSCOMPLAINANT JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ TO DEMURRER BY CROSSDEFENDANTS YRIN JANNETE PEREIDA AND YRIS PEREIRA TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/7/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Notice OPPOSITION BY CROSSCOMPLAINANT JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ TO DEMURRER BY CROSSDEFENDANTS YRIN JANNETE PEREIDA AND YRIS PEREIRA TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/14/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

2/14/2019: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

2/22/2019: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Summons - Summons Cross-Complaint

2/22/2019: Summons - Summons Cross-Complaint

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

2/11/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Notice of Deposit - Jury - Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/11/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury - Notice of Deposit - Jury

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

1/14/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12/20/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/23/2021
  • Hearing12/23/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • Hearing05/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2020
  • DocketNotice Notice of Entry of order; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 05/10/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • DocketOn the Cross-Complaint filed by Juan Carlos Gonzalez on 02/14/2019, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to Yrin Jannete Pereida and Yris Pereira

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • DocketOn the Cross-Complaint filed by Juan Carlos Gonzalez on 02/22/2019, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to Yrin Jannete Pereida and Yris Pereira

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 12/09/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 12/09/2019; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
29 More Docket Entries
  • 02/11/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by: Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Defendant); Service Date: 01/09/2019; Service Cost: 70.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC15171    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 94

State Farm v. Gonzalez, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Defendants Yrin Jannete Pereida And Yris Pereira’s Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

On December 20, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Juan Carlos Gonzalez (“Cross-Complainant”). On February 14, 2019, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint for indemnity and apportionment of fault against Cross-Defendants Yrin Jannete Pereida And Yris Pereira (“Cross-Defendants”). Cross-Defendants filed the instant demurrer to the Cross-Complaint on July 22, 2019. Cross-Complainant filed an opposition on August 7, 2019 and Cross-Defendants replied on August 9, 2019.

The Demurrer initially came for hearing on August 19, 2019, at which time the Court found Cross-Defendants had not satisfied the meet and confer requirements. The Demurrer came again for hearing on October 21, 2019 with the same result. Cross-Defendants then filed a meet and confer declaration on October 23, 2019 and Statement of the Case on November 12, 2019.

Legal Standard

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). Specifically, a demurrer may be brought per Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (a) a demurrer may be brought where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Furthermore, a demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

However, in construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.) And, if the facts pled in the complaint are inconsistent with facts which are incorporated by reference from exhibits attached to the complaint, the facts in the incorporated exhibits control. Further, irrespective of the name or label given to a cause of action by the plaintiff, a general demurrer must be overruled if the facts as pled in the body of the complaint state some valid claim for relief. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

Discussion

The Court now finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Magpapian Decl., filed 10/23/19.) In demurring to the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendants contends that Walker fails to allege facts to support a cause of action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (d).) 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., ¶6.) Plaintiff, however, is only bringing this action as Cross-Defendants’ subrogee and simply stands in their shoes. (See Compl., ¶8; Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1292.) The cases on which Cross-Complainant relies do not involve a subrogor-subrogee relationship. Therefore, there is no “other person” to whom Cross-Defendants are liable. To the extent Cross-Complainant contends Cross-Defendants’ own negligence caused the accident, this is set forth as an affirmative defense. (See Answer, filed 2/11/19, ¶5.)

The demurrer to the first cause of action for indemnification is sustained.

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, the demurrer to the second cause of action is also sustained.

Leave to Amend

Cross-Complainant asks for leave to amend if the demurrer is sustained but shows no basis for amendment. There can be no cross-claim against Cross-Defendants for damages Plaintiff incurred as their insurer. Cross-Complainant, therefore, has not met his burden to demonstrate that leave to amend is appropriate. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)

Conclusion

Cross-Defendants Yrin Jannete Pereida And Yris Pereira’s Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.