On 04/23/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY against MARIO ALEJANDRO BERRIOS in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
*******6065
04/23/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
BERRIOS MARIO ALEJANDRO
6/6/2018: Proof of Personal Service
6/14/2018: Answer
11/27/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities
11/27/2018: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Service by Mail
11/27/2018: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted
11/27/2018: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Jenny R. Louro
1/2/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)
1/3/2019: Order (name extension) - Order Granting Motion Deem Admissions
2/19/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
2/19/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/1/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice
5/1/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities
5/1/2019: Declaration of Mailing - Declaration of Mailing
5/1/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
5/1/2019: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion
4/23/2018: Summons - on Complaint
4/23/2018: Complaint
4/23/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketDeclaration DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketDeclaration of Mailing; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Mario Alejandro Berrios (Defendant)
DocketUpdated -- Order Granting Motion Deem Admissions: Filed By: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); Result: Rejected; Result Date: 01/04/2019
DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by: Clerk
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Mario Alejandro Berrios (Defendant)
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Mario Alejandro Berrios (Defendant); Service Date: 05/24/18; Service Cost: 64.50; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/21/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketComplaint; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Mario Alejandro Berrios (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 18STLC06065 Hearing Date: November 21, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO COMPLAINT
(CCP § 438)
TENTATIVE RULING:
COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE ORDERED TO PERSONALLY APPEAR FOR THE HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2019 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94.
COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BE PREPARED TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH MEET AND CONFER AT THAT TIME. FOLLOWING THEIR APPEARANCE, THE HEARING ON THE MOTION WILL BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 16, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94.
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
On April 23, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”), an automobile insurer, brought this subrogation action against Defendant Mario Alejandro Berrios (“Defendant”) for allegedly causing a car accident and injuring its insured. After Defendant filed an Answer on June 14, 2018, the parties proceed with discovery.
Because Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions (“RFA”), the Court deemed the truth of the matters specified in the RFA as admitted on January 2, 2019. Relying on the deemed admissions, Plaintiff brought the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to its Complaint on May 1, 2019. To date, no opposition has 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.)
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
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the meet and confer requirements set forth at Code of Civil Procedure, section 439. Code of Civil Procedure 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).) The parties are to 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 shall file and serve a declaration detailing the meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3).)
The meet and confer declaration made by counsel for Plaintiff states only that a letter regarding the basis for the Motion was sent to defense counsel on February 15, 2019. (Demurrer, Louro Decl.) Nothing in the declaration or meet and confer letter indicate that the attorneys met in person, spoke on the phone, or made any attempt to do so. (Id. at Exh. A.)
ACCORDINGLY, COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE ORDERED TO PERSONALLY APPEAR FOR THE HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2019 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94. COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BE PREPARED TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH MEET AND CONFER AT THAT TIME. FOLLOWING THEIR APPEARANCE, THE HEARING ON THE MOTION WILL BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 16, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A DECLARATION DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR, OR FURTHER ACTION AS THE COURT MAY SEE FIT.
Moving party to give notice.