This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/07/2019 at 16:06:27 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS OSCAR FLORES

Case Summary

On 10/17/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY against OSCAR FLORES in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3128

  • Filing Date:

    10/17/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

FLORES OSCAR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LOURO JENNY ROSE

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/20/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

11/20/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JOSEPH M PLEASANT ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

11/20/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JOSEPH M PLEASANT ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

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

11/20/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

7/9/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

7/9/2019: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

7/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

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

7/9/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted) of 06/10/2019

6/10/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted) of 06/10/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

6/10/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JOSEPH M PLEASANT ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS

4/9/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF JOSEPH M PLEASANT ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

4/9/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

4/9/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

11/29/2018: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Answer - Answer

12/6/2018: Answer - Answer

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/17/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Venue

10/17/2018: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Venue

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

10/17/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/20/2021
  • Hearing10/20/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • Hearing04/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • Hearing12/12/2019 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketMotion to Deem RFA's Admitted; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketDeclaration OF JOSEPH M PLEASANT ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 12/12/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS scheduled for 10/22/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 10/22/2019; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 12/06/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Oscar Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketDeclaration of Venue; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13128    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Flores, et al.

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 against Defendant Oscar Flores is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Oscar Flores (“Defendant”) on October 17, 2018. On December 6, 2018, Defendant filed his answer. On January 23, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant. On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, which is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, for judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint. (Motion, Pleasant Decl., Ex. A.) To date, no opposition has been filed.

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

Plaintiff submits a Request for Judicial Notice of Defendant’s Answer filed on December 6, 2018 and the Court’s order of January 23, 2020 deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted. The court takes judicial notice of the deemed admissions. The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); 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 in the Requests directly contradict the general denial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer.

In particular, the admissions admit that on the date of the accident that is the subject of this action, Defendant was the owner of the vehicle that collided with the vehicle of Plaintiff’s insured. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B, Request for Admission Nos. 1-2.) The admissions also admit that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care by permitting Doe 1 to drive the vehicle and that such lack of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing the motor vehicle accident that damaged Plaintiff’s insured.

(Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 3-4.) The admissions also admit that Defendant’s vehicle was uninsured and Defendant caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $5,813.83. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-7.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendant with requests for admission that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. These admissions establish the facts in Plaintiff’s Complaint and that Defendant has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC13128    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Flores, 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 Admitted Matters served on Defendant Oscar Flores, is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Admissions on Defendant Oscar Flores (“Defendant”). (Motion, Pleasant Decl., Exh. A.) To date, Plaintiff has not received any discovery responses to the propounded discovery requests from Defendant. (Id. at p. 1:26-28.) As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Defendant as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on November 20, 2019.

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 CCP §§ 2023.010, 2023.030 and 2033.280, and have been properly noticed. Sanctions are granted against Defendant in the amount of $460.00, based on two hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Motion, Pleasant Decl., p. 2:1-4.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.