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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY J. FUJIE
LAURA A. SEIGLE
AMY D. HOGUE
DOES 1 TO 20
ROSENBERG JOHN P.
JOACHIM LINDSAY ESQ.
REISINGER ROBERT L. ESQ.
1/26/2018: Minute Order
3/6/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES BY DEFENDANTS ANGELICA VALDEZ
4/9/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
8/9/2018: Minute Order
8/20/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR AN ORDER QUASHING THE SUBPOENAS OF DEFENDANT;AND ETC.
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
1/30/2019: Ex Parte Application
1/30/2019: Minute Order
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
3/2/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
5/23/2017: NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE
7/7/2017: PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
Notice (Notice of withdraw of defendants motion to quash subpoena for the production of business records); Filed by Angelica Valdez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (of Edye A Hill); Filed by Angelica Valdez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Quash; Filed by Angelica Valdez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue the FSC & Trial Dates;) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the FSC & Trial D...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (to Continue the FSC & Trial Dates;); Filed by Rebecca Lim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 7, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash ((Legacy)) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
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
Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTRead MoreRead Less
Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICERead MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by Rebecca Lim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Rebecca Lim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
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
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
February 2, 2021
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.
“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.
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 insurer. Boyer is inapposite; in Boyer, the plaintiff did not seek to recover from the debtor defendant’s insurer, but the debtor’s employer’s insurer. Furthermore, 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.
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
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases