This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/20/2021 at 09:45:04 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS VERONICA MURO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/18/2018 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VERONICA MURO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6302

  • Filing Date:

    04/18/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants

MARENTES MIGUEL ANGEL

MURO VERONICA

MARENTES ASCENSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PLEASANT JOSEPH M

Defendant Attorney

DEATHERAGE CHRISTOPHER ELRIC

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order FOR DISMISSAL WITH RESERVATION TO VACATE AND ENTER JUDGMENT UPON BREACH

2/14/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order FOR DISMISSAL WITH RESERVATION TO VACATE AND ENTER JUDGMENT UPON BREACH

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order FOR DISMISSAL WITH RESERVATION TO VACATE AND ENTER JUDGMENT UPON BREACH

3/23/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order FOR DISMISSAL WITH RESERVATION TO VACATE AND ENTER JUDGMENT UPON BREACH

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/25/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

11/25/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER BEYER ESQ ISO MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

11/25/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER BEYER ESQ ISO MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order - Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

1/19/2021: Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order - Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance C...)

1/19/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance C...)

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

9/16/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO ...)

8/28/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO ...)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/8/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration of Mailing - Declaration of Mailing

5/8/2019: Declaration of Mailing - Declaration of Mailing

Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

5/6/2019: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. SCHOECK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS

5/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. SCHOECK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS

Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

5/6/2019: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/6/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. SCHOECK ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS

5/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. SCHOECK ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL (CCP 1013; 1013 (a)

5/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL (CCP 1013; 1013 (a)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/18/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

49 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal: Filed By: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 01/19/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketStipulated judgment entered for Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company against Defendant Miguel Angel Marentes on the Complaint filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on 04/18/2018 for the principal amount of $5,464.12 and costs of $60.00 for a total of $5,524.12.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketDismissal entered on 03/23/2020, is Vacated - .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance C...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance C...) of 01/19/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) scheduled for 01/19/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 01/19/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 77 with DismissalParty:1956155 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) scheduled for 01/19/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
73 More Docket Entries
  • 08/08/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Ascension Marentes (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 07/19/2018; Service Cost: 77.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Miguel Angel Marentes (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/29/2018; Service Cost: 77.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Veronica Muro (Defendant); Service Date: 05/21/2018; Service Cost: 74.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Veronica Muro (Defendant); Miguel Angel Marentes (Defendant); Ascension Marentes (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC06302    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Muro, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,464.12 PRINCIPAL AND $60.00 COSTS.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Veronica Muro (“Defendant Muro”), Ascencion Marentes (“Defendant Ascension”) and Miguel Angel Marentes (“Defendant Miguel”) on April 18, 2018. Defendants Muro and Ascension were dismissed on February 7, 2020.

On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a stipulation for entry of judgment and order to retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The Court signed the order and dismissed the action without prejudice on the same date. On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce the Settlement and Enter Judgment against Defendant Miguel (“the Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Accordingly, “parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)

Discussion

Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements set forth above. (Motion, Myers Decl., Exh. A.) The settlement agreement and request for retention of jurisdiction were signed by both parties and presented to the Court prior to dismissal of the action and entry of order on the same. The settlement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff the sum of $11,695.00 in monthly payments starting October 31, 2019 until paid in full. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that if Defendant Miguel defaults, Plaintiff may move for entry of judgment in the amount of the Complaint ($15,159.12) plus costs and interest, but less payments made. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.)

Payments of $9,695.00 were made towards the stipulated judgment, after which Defendant Miguel defaulted. (Id. at ¶4.) In light of Defendant Miguel’s violation of the stipulated settlement terms, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of $5,464.12 principal and $60.00 costs. (Id. at ¶6.)

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC06302    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 26

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 against Defendants Veronica Muro, Miguel Angel Marentes, and Ascencion Marentes is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Veronica Muro (“Defendant Muro”), Miguel Angel Marentes and Ascencion Marentes (“the Marentes Defendants”) on April 18, 2018. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Muro’s negligence during the operation of the Marentes’ motor vehicle resulted in damages to Plaintiff’s insured. (Compl., ¶6.) On June 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Muro. On July 1, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against the Marentes Defendants. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendants. 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 Defendants’ Answers filed on October 11, 2018 and November 21, 2018, and the Court’s orders of June 12, 2019 and July 1, 2019. 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 Defendants’ Answers.

In particular, the admissions state that at the time of the accident Defendant Muro failed to drive with reasonable care. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B, Muro Request for Admission No. 4.) They also admit that Defendant Muro was the sole cause of the accident with Plaintiff’s insured, that she caused the Plaintiff’s insured to incur damages as a result, that as a result she caused Plaintiff to incur damages, and the lack of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing the accident that injured Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-8.) The admissions admit that Defendant Muro caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $15,159.12. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 8-9.)

Similarly, the admissions by the Marentes Defendants contradict their Answers. The admissions admit that the Marentes were the registered owner of the vehicle Defendant Muro was driving at the time of the subject accident, and that she was driving the vehicle with their permission. (RJN, Exh. B, Marentes Request for Admission Nos. 1-2.) They further admit that they failed to exercise reasonable care in permitting Defendant Muro’s use of the subject vehicle and that said lack of care was a substantial cause of the subject accident. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 3-4.) Finally, they admit that this failure caused Plaintiff to incur damages from the subject accident in the amount of at least $15,159.12. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 5-7.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendants with requests for admission that effectively sought the admission of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The admissions here establish that the facts upon which Plaintiff its Complaint and that Defendants have not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


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

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HARLAN M. REESE & ASSOCIATES - JOSEPH M. PLEASANT