This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/01/2021 at 02:38:51 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MAYRA GOMEZ

Case Summary

On 05/10/2019 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MAYRA GOMEZ. 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 Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4600

  • Filing Date:

    05/10/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

GOMEZ MAYRA

Not Classified By Court

LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SCHOECK MICHAEL D

Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorney

NGUYEN ERIN

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JOSEPH PLEASANT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION

4/30/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JOSEPH PLEASANT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

2/4/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

11/20/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)) of 11/12/2020

11/12/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)) of 11/12/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter))

11/12/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter))

Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

10/28/2020: Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS ADMITTED

10/28/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS ADMITTED

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/30/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) of 11/06/2020

11/6/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) of 11/06/2020

Reply (name extension) - Reply TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

9/3/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

9/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

6/26/2020: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

6/26/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/27/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

1/6/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

5/23/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

5/10/2019: Complaint - Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/10/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/13/2022
  • Hearing05/13/2022 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
  • 05/17/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion re: RELIEF FROM ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS ADMITTED: Filed By: MAYRA GOMEZ (Defendant); Result: Denied; Name Extension changed from MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS ADMITTED to RELIEF FROM ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS ADMITTED; Result Date: 05/17/2021; As To Parties changed from STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff) to STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Relief from Order Deeming Requests Admi...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Relief from Order Deeming Requests Admi...) of 05/17/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Motion for Relief from Order Deeming Requests Admitted scheduled for 05/17/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 05/17/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Intervene by ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Intervene by Loya Casualty Insurance Company scheduled for 05/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 05/13/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketOpposition TO MOTION TO INTERVENE; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MAYRA GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketDeclaration OF JOSEPH PLEASANT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
63 More Docket Entries
  • 05/23/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MAYRA GOMEZ (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/20/2019; Service Cost: 89.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MAYRA GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MAYRA GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MAYRA GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketDeclaration DECLARATION OF VENUE; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MAYRA GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04600    Hearing Date: May 17, 2021    Dept: 26

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER DEEMING RFAS ADMITTED

(CCP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Mayra Gomez’s Motion for Relief from Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Mayra Gomez (“Defendant”) on May 10, 2019. On July 3, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. On March 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant. Following the Court granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff on December 1, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Relief from Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted on October 28, 2020. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Defendant brings the instant Motion on the following grounds: (1) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b); (2) lack of proper notice of the hearing on the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted; and (3) the request to intervene in this action. The Court will address each basis in turn.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

The Motion is not timely brought within six months of the order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against Defendant. That order was made on March 5, 2020, yet the instant Motion was not filed until October 28, 2020, almost eight months later. The six-month deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling. (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) Therefore, the Court has no discretion to ignore the express statutory deadline.

Lack of Proper Notice

Defendant also argues that the Notice of Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted incorrectly stated that the hearing was in Department 94 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, but the correct department was Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted, filed 01/05/21.) While the Notice of Motion was technically defective, Defendant has not shown that any prejudice from the error. Defendant’s counsel was unaware of the hearing for the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted until a month after the hearing. (Motion, Nguyen Decl., ¶14.) The defective Notice of Motion, therefore, had no bearing on Defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing on March 5, 2020.

Intervention by Defendant’s Insurance Carrier

Defendant also argues that her insurance carrier has sought intervention in this action and should be allowed to defend the action on her behalf. For the reasons set forth in the ruling issued May 13, 2021, however, the Court denied the Motion to Intervene.

Conclusion

Defendant Mayra Gomez’s Motion for Relief from Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04600    Hearing Date: May 13, 2021    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Gomez, et al

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene is DENIEANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Mayra Gomez (“Defendant”) on May 10, 2019. On July 3, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. On March 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant. Following the Court granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff on December 1, 2020.

Non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya Casualty”) filed the instant motion to intervene on October 28, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 30, 2021.

Discussion

The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Upon timely application, intervention is allowed when “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted.  (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id. at 515.) 

Loya Casualty contends it was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident that gives rise to this action. (Motion, Nguyen Decl., ¶¶1-3 and Exh. B.) Loya Casualty also presents evidence that it has been unable to locate Defendant to participate in this action. (Id. at ¶¶8-15.) It is undisputed that Defendant has not appeared and that her insurer would have an interest as it would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendant. (See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Nor would intervention enlarge the issues in this action, as it would simply assert defenses on Defendant’s behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra at 386 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

However, as pointed out in Plaintiff’s opposition, Loya Casualty has not shown that its application to intervene is timely. Loya Casualty has been unable to locate Defendant since July 2019. (Motion, Nguyen Decl., ¶9.) Despite its repeatedly unsuccessful efforts to locate Defendant and the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted against Defendant, Loya Casualty made no effort to intervene until almost 11 months later. (See id. at ¶¶8-14.) Judgment now having been entered in this action, the time to intervene has long since passed.

Conclusion

Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04600    Hearing Date: September 08, 2020    Dept: 26

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Code Civ. Proc., § 438; 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 CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 6, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action

for automobile subrogation against Defendant Mayra Gomez (“Defendant”) on May 10, 2019. On July 3, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer. On March 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant. On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant filed an opposition on August 28, 2020.

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.)

Discussion

A meet and confer effort is required prior to filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff’s counsel sought to satisfy the meet and confer requirement by mailing a letter to defense counsel on April 3, 2020. (Motion, Pleasant Decl., Exh. A.) Mailing a meet and confer letter does not technically comply with section 439, which requires that “the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the challenged pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) The letter asks defense counsel to respond by April 17, 2020, but despite not hearing from defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel did not make an effort to make telephonic or in-person contact. (Motion, Pleasant Decl., p. 2:1.)

This insufficient meet and confer effort is problematic because Defendant filed an opposition contending that defense counsel did not receive actual notice of the moving papers or notice of hearing. (Opp., Nguyen Decl., ¶¶6-11.) Due to a processing error in the mail room of defense counsel’s office, defense counsel did not receive most of the papers filed and served in this action. (Ibid.) Had Plaintiff’s counsel reached out telephonically, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439, defense counsel would have realized that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was filed. This is not to say that defense counsel is not partly to blame for the lack of notice given the problems with the mail room appear to have been going on for months and should have been corrected. (Ibid.) However, compliance with the statutory meet and confer

requirements might have avoided these notice problems. Additionally, the opposition contends that it will seek relief from the March 5, 2020 order in which the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant. The order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant is the basis of the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Motion, p. 1:22-2:7.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 6, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A MEET AND CONFER DECLARATION THAT DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. AT LEAST NINE (9) COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. ANY REPLY IS TO BE FILED AND SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04600    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 26

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Code Civ. Proc., § 438; 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 CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 6, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action

for automobile subrogation against Defendant Mayra Gomez (“Defendant”) on May 10, 2019. On July 3, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer. On March 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant. On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant filed an opposition on August 28, 2020.

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.)

Discussion

A meet and confer effort is required prior to filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff’s counsel sought to satisfy the meet and confer requirement by mailing a letter to defense counsel on April 3, 2020. (Motion, Pleasant Decl., Exh. A.) Mailing a meet and confer letter does not technically comply with section 439, which requires that “the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the challenged pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).) The letter asks defense counsel to respond by April 17, 2020, but despite not hearing from defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel did not make an effort to make telephonic or in-person contact. (Motion, Pleasant Decl., p. 2:1.)

This insufficient meet and confer effort is problematic because Defendant filed an opposition contending that defense counsel did not receive actual notice of the moving papers or notice of hearing. (Opp., Nguyen Decl., ¶¶6-11.) Due to a processing error in the mail room of defense counsel’s office, defense counsel did not receive most of the papers filed and served in this action. (Ibid.) Had Plaintiff’s counsel reached out telephonically, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439, defense counsel would have realized that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was filed. This is not to say that defense counsel is not partly to blame for the lack of notice given the problems with the mail room appear to have been going on for months and should have been corrected. (Ibid.) However, compliance with the statutory meet and confer

requirements might have avoided these notice problems. Additionally, the opposition contends that it will seek relief from the March 5, 2020 order in which the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant. The order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant is the basis of the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Motion, p. 1:22-2:7.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 6, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A MEET AND CONFER DECLARATION THAT DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. AT LEAST NINE (9) COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. ANY REPLY IS TO BE FILED AND SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04600    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Gomez, Jr., 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 Mayra Gomez is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $260.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Admissions on Defendant Mayra Gomez (“Defendant”). (Motion, Schoeck Decl., Exh. A.) Following multiple extensions of the time to respond, on October 16, 2019, Defendant served unverified responses to the Requests for Admission. (Id. at Exh. B.) Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel on November 18, 2019. (Ibid.) Despite an additional extension of the time to respond, Plaintiff has not received verified responses to the discovery requests propounded on Defendant. (Id. at p. 2:8.) As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on January 6, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Defendant has not provided verified responses to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff nor filed an opposition to the motion. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses.

The Court finds the failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. 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 $260.00, based on one hour of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Id. at p. 2:9-12.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Defendant Mayra Gomez is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $260.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer NGUYEN ERIN