This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/01/2021 at 22:02:52 (UTC).

RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS DANIEL SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/01/2021 RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DANIEL SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4310

  • Filing Date:

    07/01/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

FORBES-MOVCHAN AN INDIVIDUAL BAILI

UBILLUS AN INDIVIDUAL RICARDO SEBASTIAN

Defendants

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

SANCHEZ AN INDIVIDUAL DANIEL

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BINDER RONALD M.

Defendant Attorney

DIAMOND ALEXIS

 

Court Documents

Complaint

7/1/2021: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

7/1/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/1/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

7/1/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

PI General Order

7/9/2021: PI General Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

7/9/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/9/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/26/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service

8/26/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT;

9/21/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT;

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DEMURRING OR MOVING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION

9/17/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DEMURRING OR MOVING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/27/2024
  • Hearing06/27/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2022
  • Hearing12/29/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2022
  • Hearing12/15/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • Hearing10/21/2021 at 1:30 PM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike (TO PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT;); Filed by DANIEL SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL (Defendant); State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneously Sued As THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneous

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF DEMURRING OR MOVING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION); Filed by DANIEL SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL (Defendant); State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff); BAILI FORBES-MOVCHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff); BAILI FORBES-MOVCHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff); BAILI FORBES-MOVCHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff); BAILI FORBES-MOVCHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by RICARDO SEBASTIAN UBILLUS, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff); BAILI FORBES-MOVCHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV24310 Hearing Date: October 21, 2021 Dept: 28

\r\n\r\n

Defendants State of California (acting by and through the California\r\nHighway Patrol) and Daniel Sanchez’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

\r\n\r\n

Having reviewed the demurrer,\r\nOpposition, objections by both parties, responses to objections, and Reply, the\r\nCourt rules as follows.

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

On July 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Ricardo\r\nSebastian Ubillus and Baili Forbes-Movchan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a\r\nComplaint against Defendants Daniel Sanchez; The State of California;\r\nCalifornia Highway Patrol; and DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, alleging 2 causes of\r\naction arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on March 4, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

On September 17, 2021, Defendants\r\nState of California (by and through California Highway Patrol) and Daniel\r\nSanchez (“Moving Defendants”) filed a declaration in support of an automatic\r\nextension of time to file a demurrer.

\r\n\r\n

On September 21, 2021, Moving\r\nDefendants filed the instant demurrer.

\r\n\r\n

On October 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed\r\nan Opposition and objections.

\r\n\r\n

On October 14, 2021, Moving\r\nDefendants filed a Reply and objections of their own.

\r\n\r\n

On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed\r\nresponses to Moving Defendants’ objections.

\r\n\r\n

Trial is set for December 29, 2022.

\r\n\r\n

PARTY’S\r\nREQUEST

\r\n\r\n

Moving Defendants\r\nrequest the Court sustain the demurrer and dismiss the action in its entirety\r\non the basis that Moving Defendants are immune from suit on the basis of\r\npursuit immunity and investigation immunity.

\r\n\r\n

LEGAL STANDARD

\r\n\r\n

Meet\r\nand Confer

\r\n\r\n

Before\r\nfiling a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the\r\nparty who filed the pleading demurred to, in person or telephonically, for the\r\npurposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of\r\nan amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the\r\ndemurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.)

\r\n\r\n

Demurrer

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10 provides, in\r\nrelevant part:

\r\n\r\n

The party against whom a complaint or\r\ncross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in\r\n§ 430.30, to the pleading on\r\nany one or more of the following grounds:

\r\n\r\n

(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the\r\nsubject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.\r\n(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to\r\nsue.\r\n(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same\r\ncause of action.\r\n(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.\r\n(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of\r\naction.\r\n(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain”\r\nincludes ambiguous and unintelligible.\r\n(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from\r\nthe pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by\r\nconduct.\r\n(h) No certificate was filed as required by § 411.35.

\r\n\r\n

A\r\ndemurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.\r\n(Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the\r\nallegations liberally and in context. (Taylor\r\nv. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th\r\n1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding,\r\nthe defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial\r\nnotice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins.\r\nCo. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) \r\n“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other\r\nextrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies\r\nonly where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially\r\nnoticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior\r\nCourt (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) \r\n“The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint,\r\nas it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of\r\naction.” (Hahn, supra, 147\r\nCal.App.4th at p. 747.) The ultimate\r\nfacts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that\r\nmay be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher\r\n(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego\r\n(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read\r\nliberally, and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].)

\r\n\r\n

OBJECTIONS

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ objection to Ex. 1 of the\r\nDemurrer and Moving Defendants’ objections to the declarations of Plaintiff\r\nBaili Forbes-Movchan and Plaintiff’s counsel are all OVERRULED only on the\r\nbasis that they were not relevant to the Court’s final determination on this\r\nmatter.

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

The Court first notes\r\nthat Moving Defendants did properly attempt to meet & confer to address the\r\nissues contained in the demurrer, but the parties were unable to resolve them\r\ninformally.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts that on March\r\n4, 2021, Plaintiffs were travelling southbound on Cahuenga Boulevard at or near\r\nPilgrimage Bridge in Los Angeles. Defendant California Highway Patrol Officer\r\nDaniel Sanchez is alleged to have been driving a CHP vehicle in the same\r\ndirection, without any lights flashing or sirens sounding, when he suddenly\r\nswerved across the southbound lanes of traffic and collided with Plaintiffs’\r\nvehicle, causing personal injuries and property damage. Plaintiffs thereafter\r\nbrought this Complaint alleging General Negligence and Negligence under\r\nCalifornia Vehicle Code § 17001 and Government Code §§ 810, et seq. (California\r\nTort Claims Act).

\r\n\r\n

Moving Defendants demur\r\non the basis that California Vehicle Code § 17004 and Government Code § 821.6\r\nprovide immunity for Defendant Officer Sanchez. Moving Defendants further\r\nassert that the immunity provided to Defendant Officer Sanchez by Government\r\nCode § 821.6 also extends that immunity to California Highway Patrol (through\r\nwhom the State of California is acting) via Government Code § 815.2(b).

\r\n\r\n

Moving Defendants\r\nallege that Defendant Officer Sanchez had indeed activated his lights and was\r\nin pursuit of a driver at the time of the collision. Moving Defendants provide\r\nand rely on a Traffic Collision Support to support their allegations and\r\nassertions of immunity. The allegations and evidence submitted in support are\r\nimmaterial for the purposes of this demurrer. “A demurrer tests the\r\npleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects\r\nappear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v.\r\nSuperior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in\r\na demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with\r\nextraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147\r\nCal.App.4th at 747.) The Court\r\nlooks only to the Complaint to assess whether a defect exists on the face of\r\nthe Complaint. (See Donabedian, supra, 144\r\nCal.App.4th at 994.)

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds that\r\nthere is no defect on the face of the Complaint. Moving Defendants are asking\r\nthe Court to weigh contrasting factual assertions between the extrinsic\r\nevidence they have provided and the allegations contained within the Complaint\r\nto determine whether the immunities they assert would apply. This demurrer is\r\nnot the appropriate means for doing so; the Court will not weigh evidence to decide\r\nthese questions in a demurrer.

\r\n\r\n

The appropriate venue\r\nfor asserting and arguing these privileges based on the evidence is in a Motion\r\nfor Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication.

\r\n\r\n

The Demurrer is\r\nOVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

Defendants State of California\r\n(acting by and through the California Highway Patrol) and Daniel Sanchez’s\r\nDemurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

Moving Defendants are\r\nordered to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for\r\nfurther instructions.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BINDER RONALD