This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/10/2020 at 01:31:49 (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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4600

  • Filing Date:

    05/10/2019

  • 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

GOMEZ MAYRA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SCHOECK MICHAEL D

Defendant Attorney

NGUYEN ERIN

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Request for hearing continuance; Declaration of Erin K. Nguyen

8/28/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Request for hearing continuance; Declaration of Erin K. Nguyen

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

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) of 09/08/2020

9/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) of 09/08/2020

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

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

6/26/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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)

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING

7/27/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING

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

3/19/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

1/6/2020: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF MICHAEL D SCHOECK ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

1/6/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF MICHAEL D SCHOECK ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

Answer - Answer

7/3/2019: Answer - Answer

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

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/10/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

21 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
  • 11/06/2020
  • Hearing11/06/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings scheduled for 11/06/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) of 09/08/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings scheduled for 09/08/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/06/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 09/08/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Hearing On Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings, Declaration of Erin K. Nguyen; Proposed Order scheduled for 09/04/2020 at 01:30 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketReply TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketDeclaration OF JOSEPH M PLEASANT ISO REPLY; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
26 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: 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.