STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs JENKINS

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. *** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiff’s service

24CV009136: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs JENKINS 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16D

of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 4/2/2025, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving plaintiff is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving party to state the “grounds” for the motion presented, and does not provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53, now designated as Dept. 16D.

The moving papers fail to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Plaintiff State Farm Automobile Insurance Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against defendant Jenkins is ruled upon as follows.

This is a subrogation action. Plaintiff contends that by virtue of the Court’s earlier 7/7/2025 order granting plaintiff’s prior motion to deem its requests for admissions admitted, defendant Jenkins does not have facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, which is otherwise sufficient to state a valid cause of action against defendant Jenkins. Thus, plaintiff insists it is therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings as against defendant Jenkins.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of its earlier motion to deem admitted the requests for admissions propounded to defendant Jenkins, along with the Court’s 7/7/2025 order granting such motion to deem admitted, is granted. The Court notes that since granting plaintiff’s motion for deemed admissions on 7/7/2025, the Court has not made any order finding that defendant Jenkins served, before the hearing on such motion, a codecompliant response to the requests for admission (see, Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(c)) or otherwise granting relief from such deemed admissions.

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “[T]he complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. §438(c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the motion shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ.

Proc. §438 (d).) The Court properly takes judicial notice of the fact that defendant Jenkins has been deemed to have admitted the material allegations of plaintiff’s complaint. Indeed, the Court will take judicial notice of records, such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer or an analogous motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See, e.g., Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV009136: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs JENKINS 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16D

117 Cal. 481, 482; Morris v. Harbor Boat Bldg. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 882, 886; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604- 605.)

Thus, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may extend consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice; in doing so, the Court performs essentially the same task as ruling on a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146.) Additionally, the Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.) “A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendant’s pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (MacIsaac v.

Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.)

Here, the complaint appears to adequately allege the requisite elements of an insurance subrogation claim, and notably, defendant Jenkins has never presented any motion challenging the sufficiency of the complaint. Moreover, as noted above, plaintiff’s requests for admission to defendant Jenkins have been deemed admitted and thus, defendant Jenkins is deemed to have admitted inter alia that his negligent operation of a motor vehicle was the sole cause of injury and damages to plaintiff’s insured in the amount of $23,625.82 and that he has no valid defense to this claim for subrogation.

Additionally, although defendant Jenkins’ 8/15/2024 answer to the complaint includes a general denial and asserts several affirmative defenses, the subsequent 7/7/2025 order granting plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted takes precedence over any contrary allegations in this answer. (See, e.g., Del E. Webb Corp., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at 604- 605 [“The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court”].) “[A] deemed admitted order establishes that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein” (Wilcox v.

Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983) and Code of Civil Procedure §2033.410(a) clarifies that “[a]ny matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action, unless the court has permitted withdrawal or amendment of that admission ” (underline added for emphasis). Defendant Jenkins has to date made no such motion.

The Court also finds that no opposition or other written objection was filed by defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV009136: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs JENKINS 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16D

Jenkins in response to the present motion and this is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

For all these reasons, the Court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to judgment against defendant Jenkins as a matter of law and therefore, the present motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be and hereby is GRANTED.

The Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers because it does not track the language of the above-ruling and also includes extraneous matter.

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, plaintiff to prepare and submit for the Court’s consideration an appropriate revised proposed order along with a judgment.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)