STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MARIA LUISA MURO

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC10889    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 94

State Farm v. Muro, et al.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Maria Luisa Muro (“Defendant”) on August 21, 2018. The Complaint alleges that Defendant’s negligence during the operation of his motor vehicle resulted in damages to Plaintiff’s insured. On June 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted. On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. To date, no opposition has been filed.

I. 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.)

II. Discussion

On June 13, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted. (RJN, Exh. B at Exh. A.) The admissions in the Requests directly contradict the general denial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer. In particular, the admissions state that at the time of the accident Defendant failed to drive with reasonable care. (Ibid.) They also admit that Defendant was the sole cause of the accident with Plaintiff’s insured, that he caused the Plaintiff’s insured to incur damages as a result, and also as a result caused Plaintiff to incur damages. and the lack of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing the accident that injured Plaintiff’s insured. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff served Defendant with a set of requests for admission that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The court takes judicial notice of the deemed admissions. (See 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 here establish that the facts Plaintiff alleges state its causes of action and that Defendant has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint. As a result, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.