Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 03:45:03 (UTC).

REBECCA LIM VS ANGELICA VALDEZ

Case Summary

On 03/02/2017 REBECCA LIM filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ANGELICA VALDEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAURA A. SEIGLE and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2488

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2017

  • 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

Presiding Judges

HOLLY J. FUJIE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LIM REBECCA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

VALDEZ ANGELICA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ROSENBERG JOHN P.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

JOACHIM LINDSAY ESQ.

REISINGER ROBERT L. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/26/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/6/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES BY DEFENDANTS ANGELICA VALDEZ

3/6/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES BY DEFENDANTS ANGELICA VALDEZ

NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

4/9/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

Unknown

5/24/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

8/9/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR AN ORDER QUASHING THE SUBPOENAS OF DEFENDANT;AND ETC.

8/20/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR AN ORDER QUASHING THE SUBPOENAS OF DEFENDANT;AND ETC.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CATHERINE SUN IN SUPPORT THEREOF

8/31/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CATHERINE SUN IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Declaration

10/17/2018: Declaration

Opposition

10/17/2018: Opposition

Ex Parte Application

1/30/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

1/30/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

5/1/2019: Declaration

Notice

5/23/2019: Notice

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT, ANGELICA VALDEZ, AND HER ATTORNEY OF RE

12/29/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT, ANGELICA VALDEZ, AND HER ATTORNEY OF RE

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

3/2/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE

5/23/2017: NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

7/7/2017: PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice (Notice of withdraw of defendants motion to quash subpoena for the production of business records); Filed by Angelica Valdez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Declaration (of Edye A Hill); Filed by Angelica Valdez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Motion to Quash; Filed by Angelica Valdez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue the FSC & Trial Dates;) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the FSC & Trial D...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to Continue the FSC & Trial Dates;); Filed by Rebecca Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 7, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash ((Legacy)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • Declaration (Of Edye A. Hill In support of Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoenas...); Filed by Angelica Valdez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
48 More Docket Entries
  • 07/07/2017
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Rebecca Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Rebecca Lim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC652488    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

REBECCA LIM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANGELICA VALDEZ,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC652488

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 2, 2021

I.INTRODUCTION

On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff Rebecca Lim filed this action against Defendant Angelica Valdez arising from a March 9, 2015 motor vehicle accident.  Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings and seeks entry of judgment of $15,000 in favor of Plaintiff on the grounds that this is the maximum Plaintiff can obtain due to Defendant’s bankruptcy discharge.  In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s motion is improper as a judgment on the pleadings and the trial court does not have jurisdiction to take action on a matter that should be settled in Bankruptcy Court.   

II.LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.  [Citations.]”  (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) “Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  [Citation.]”  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) The court must assume the truth of all properly pleaded material facts and allegations, but not contentions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Wise v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738.)  

A judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant is appropriate if the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(i)-(ii).) “The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.  Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).)  

III.REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant requests the Court judicially notice the March 11, 2019 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Discharge Order, attached as Exhibit D, and an August 13, 2020 Order granting relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay, attached as Exhibit E.  No such documents are attached to the request for judicial notice, but they are attached to the Declaration of Edye A. Hill.  

The Court takes judicial notice of these records of a federal court. 

IV.DISCUSSION

Defendant essentially seeks an order forcing Plaintiff to accept a $15,000 judgment based on her policy limits with Infinity Insurance Company.  (See Ellison Decl., Ex. 1.)  There are no documents in the record or legal authority cited to support Defendant’s contention.   Defendant primarily relies on Boyer v. Jensen (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 62, in which the court of appeals prevented a plaintiff from pursuing a debtor discharged in bankruptcy in order to gain access to an employer or the employer’s insurerBoyer is inapposite; in Boyer, the plaintiff did not seek to recover from the debtor defendant’s insurer, but the debtor’s employer’s insurerFurthermore, in Boyer, the defendant’s insurer had already paid out a settlement. 

Here, Plaintiff pursues her claim against Defendant so that Plaintiff can establish liability and proceed against Defendant’s insurer under Insurance Code section 11580.  This is permitted, as held in Forsyth v. Jones (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 776.  The court of appeal in Forsyth reiterated the principle that the purpose of bankruptcy does “not deprive a claimant unnecessarily of the means to recover damages for a potentially meritorious claim” and an action against a discharged debtor is allowed to “fix the liability” of the debtor’s insurers.  (Forsyth, supra, 57 Cal.App. 4th at 782.)  Dismissing Defendant through a judgment on the pleadings does not guarantee a payout by Defendant’s insurer.  Plaintiff is allowed to pursue her claim to judgment in order to establish liability and recover against Defendant’s insurer. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. 

V.CONCLUSION

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 2nd day of February 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer JOACHIM LINDSAY ESQ.