Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=af1fba05-5312-4af1-b5a3-c933cda8248f
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 12:06:55
Document Index: 306094024

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 438', '§ 438', '§ 17150', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 430', '§ 431', '§ 210']

MotionforJudgmentonthePleadings_Intervenor's Complaint in Intervention does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense | Steele v Nolte | Pamela Daly - JDSupra
Complaint in Intervention filed by a suspended corporation's insurer in a personal injury action failed to state a cause of action in that no facts pertaining to a defense was alleged
Download PDF 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS -CASE NO. C09-02787 SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN, CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 135550 LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN 613 FIRST STREET, SUITE 202 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 TELEPHONE: (925) 634-3571 FACSIMILE: (925) 634-0781 EMAIL: SKZ.SKZLAW@GMAIL.COM ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS, CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE, Plaintiffs, vs. MEASHEL ANN NOLTE, an individual; NOLTE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEMOLITION, INC., a California corporation; BRIAN NOLTE, an individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. ____________________________________ ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor. ___________________________________/CASE NO. C09-02787 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Judith Craddick Date Action Filed: Oct. 5, 2009 Hearing Date: Time: Dept: 9 TO INTERVENOR ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on _____________, 2010, at __:__ _.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, Department 9 of this Court, located at 725 Court Street, Martinez, California, Plaintiffs CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE will move the Court, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 438, for entry of judgment on the pleadings123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS -CASE NO. C09-02787 in favor of Plaintiffs CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE and against Intervenor ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY. The motion will be made on the ground that the Verified First Amended Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and Intervenor’s Complaint in Intervention does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. The motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities which accompanies this Notice, the pleadings, documents, records, and files in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing. Dated: November __, 2010. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN ____________________________ SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN Attorney for Plaintiffs, CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE move this Court for an order for judgment on the pleadings. The Complaint in Intervention filed by ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY on behalf of its insured, suspended corporation Defendant NOLTE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEMOLITION, INC. (“NEDI”), which Complaint in Intervention is regarded as an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint, presents nothing by way of a denial or new matter to bar or defeat the action, and raises no issue on a material allegation of Plaintiff’s Verified First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff CAROL L. STEELE sustained serious physical injuries in the accident and has incurred over $600,000 in medical bills, yet this litigation has been stalled by an automatic bankruptcy stay that did not involve Defendant NEDI, along with months of barren representations by ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY that the insurer would intervene. ALLSTATE finally filed its Complaint in Intervention in October, 2010, however, the Complaint in Intervention failed to include any denial or raise any issue on a material allegation of Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint whatsoever. This left Plaintiffs in litigation limbo, unable to propound contention interrogatories or propound any meaningful discovery whatsoever as to ALLSTATE’s defenses to the allegations of the Verified First Amended Complaint. As a result, Plaintiffs are compelled to seek judgment on the pleadings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following is supported by the record in this action. This case arises from a vehicular accident on May 18, 2009, wherein Plaintiff CAROL L. STEELE was operating her 1999 Cadillac Deville vehicle, lawfully traveling on Discovery Bay Boulevard in Discovery Bay, California, when Defendant MEASHEL ANN NOLTE, operating a 2001 Chevrolet 3500 truck owned by NEDI entered the intersection123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 of Clipper Drive and Discovery Bay Boulevard, and failed to grant the right of way to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs were injured and damaged. [Verified FAC ¶¶ 1-18.] Plaintiffs’ filed their Verified Complaint on October 5, 2009. On November 5, 2009, Defendants MEASHEL NOLTE and NEDI filed an Answer to Complaint, and on November 17, 2009, Defendants MEASHEL NOLTE and NEDI filed an Amended Answer to the Complaint. At the time Defendant NEDI filed its answers, it was a suspended corporation. On May 3, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Verified First Amended Complaint. No Defendants have filed an answer to the Verified First Amended Complaint. On May 12, 2010, Defendants MEASHEL and BRIAN NOLTE and their various fdba’s and dba’s, filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Action, and the liability in the within matter against these Defendants was discharged in Bankruptcy on October 19, 2010. With the liability of Defendants MEASHEL and BRIAN NOLTE and their various fdba’s and dba’s discharged in Bankruptcy, the only remaining defendant is NOLTE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEMOLITION, INC., a suspended California corporation. On October 12, 2010, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, the insurer of Defendant NEDI, filed a Complaint in Intervention. The Complaint in Intervention does not allege any denial of liability for Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages on behalf of NEDI and does not contain any allegations that constitute affirmative defenses. On October 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Answer to Complaint in Intervention. THE OPERATIVE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint alleges that on May 18, 2009, Plaintiff CAROL L. STEELE was operating her 1999 Cadillac Deville vehicle, lawfully traveling on Discovery Bay Boulevard in Discovery Bay, California, when Defendant MEASHEL ANN NOLTE, operating a 2001Chevrolet 3500 truck owned by NEDI entered the intersection of Clipper Drive and Discovery Bay Boulevard, and failed to grant the right of way to Plaintiffs’123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 vehicle, that Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, operated, and drove their motor vehicle so as to proximately cause it to collide with Plaintiffs’ Cadillac Deville vehicle. The 2001 Chevrolet 3500 truck being operated by Defendant MEASHEL ANN NOLTE was owned by and being driven with the permission of Defendant NEDI, and Plaintiff CAROL L. STEELE was injured and damaged as a result of Defendants’ negligence. [Verified FAC ¶¶ 1-17.] Additionally, Plaintiff MICHAEL D. STEELE alleges a claim for damages due to loss of consortium. [Verified FAC ¶ 18.] Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Defendant NEDI is a suspended California corporation. [Verified FAC ¶ 2.] THE OPERATIVE ALLEGATIONS OF THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY The verified Complaint in Intervention (“CII”) alleges that ALLSTATE was the insurer for NOLTE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEMOLITION, INC., under a policy of commercial auto insurance affording liability coverage to operations of certain owned vehicles (CII ¶ 2), that Plaintiffs claim some right, title or interest in some or all of the policy afforded to NEDI (CII ¶ 3), that NEDI is and was suspended as of the date of the filing of the Complaint and has forfeited its rights and privileges to defend itself in this action (CII ¶ 4), that ALLSTATE intervenes on the ground that it has a substantial interest in the litigation in that it is the insurer for NEDI and which coverage may include the obligation of said insurer both to indemnify and to defend Defendant NEDI in connection with this action (CII ¶ 5), and that ALLSTATE intervenes so that it may assert any defenses and cross-claims on behalf of its insured, including liability defenses and reserves the right to deny liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs (CII ¶ 7). The CII is devoid of any factual allegations constituting a denial of liability or affirmative defenses. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Plaintiffs CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE respectfully submit the following points and authorities in support of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Intervenor ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 1. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AND THE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FAILS TO RAISE A MATERIAL ISSUE OR TO SET UP AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE A. Plaintiffs are Entitled to a Judgment on the Pleadings: A plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper when the plaintiff claims that the 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).) A plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted when the complaint is sufficient and the answer presents nothing, either by way of denial or new matter, to bar or defeat the action. (Hemme v. Hayes (1880) 55 Cal. 337, 339; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kim W. (1984) 160 Cal. App. 3d 326, 334–335.) A plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings when the defendant's answer is evasive and raises no issue on a material allegation of the complaint. (Adjustment Corp. v. Hollywood Hardware & Paint Co. (1939) 35 Cal. App. 2d 566, 569.) In the present action, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY has intervened by its Complaint in Intervention and stands in the shoes of its insured, the suspended corporation NEDI. (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342.) An intervening party is accordingly “to be regarded as a plaintiff or as a defendant in the action ... [depending upon] the party for whose success he seeks to intervene, ...” (Boskowitz v. Thompson (1904) 144 Cal. 724, 729.) An intervener becomes either a plaintiff or a defendant, depending upon for whose success it seeks to intervene. For a defendant-in-intervention, such as ALLSTATE, its Complaint in Intervention is regarded as an answer, despite its misleading name. (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 879.) Therefore, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY is to be regarded as Defendant in Plaintiffs' action and its Complaint in Intervention as it’s answer to Plaintiffs' Verified v First123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 Amended Complaint. However, ALLSTATE’s Complaint in Intervention, treated as it’s answer to Plaintiffs' Verified First Amended Complaint, fails to state a defense to any of the allegations in the Complaint. As shown herein below, Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence against the suspended corporation Defendant NEDI, and therefore, its insurer, Intervenor ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY. ALLSTATE’s Complaint in Intervention presents nothing by way of a denial or any new matter to bar or defeat the action, and raises no issue on any material allegation of Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment on the pleadings. B. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Alleges Facts to State a Cause of Action for Negligence: Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint alleges facts to state a cause of action for Negligence. The essential elements of actionable negligence include (1) a defendant's legal duty to use due care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of a resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from that injury. (United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 586, 59; Koepke v. Loo (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 1444, 1448–1449.) The injury required as an element of actionable negligence means an act causing harm in the sense of detrimental physical changes to the body. A detrimental physical change is an actionable injury whether or not it causes emotional distress. (Duarte v. Zachariah (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1652, 1661–1664.) For a complaint in negligence to succeed, there must be a duty requiring a certain standard of conduct, a failure to conform to that standard, a close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury, and actual damages. (Bojorquez v. House of Toys, Inc. (1976) 62 Cal. App. 3d 930, 933.) The driver is most often the owner of the vehicle as well, but if the owner was not driving, the owner may also be a potential defendant if the owner may be held liable under some theory of vicarious liability, i.e., if the owner gave express or implied permission for123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 the driver to operate the vehicle. (Vehicle Code § 17150.) In this action, the verified First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs STEELE contains allegations that state a cause of action for negligence: that Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, operated, and drove their motor vehicle so as to proximately cause the motor vehicle to collide with Plaintiff’s Cadillac Deville vehicle, that the 2001 Chevrolet 3500 truck vehicle being operated by defendant MEASHEL ANN NOLTE was owned by and being driven with the permission of Defendant NEDI, and that Plaintiffs were injured and damaged as a result of Defendants’ negligence [Verified FAC ¶¶ 1-18.] Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment on the pleadings. As shown herein, ALLSTATE’s Complaint in Intervention presents nothing by way of denial or new matter to bar or defeat the action, and raises no issue on a material allegation of Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint. C. ALLSTATE’s Complaint in Intervention does not deny the material facts alleged in the Verified Complaint: Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint alleges, and ALLSTATE’s Complaint in Intervention does not deny, that MEASHEL ANN NOLTE was driving the 2001 Chevrolet 3500 truck, that the truck was owned by NEDI, and that MEASHEL ANN NOLTE was driving the truck with the permission of NEDI, and that Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, operated, and drove their motor vehicle so as to proximately cause the motor vehicle to collide with Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and that as a result of the negligence, Plaintiffs were injured and damaged. ALLSTATE’s Verified Complaint in Intervention fails to provide any denial or defense whatsoever in response to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Verified First Amended Complaint. The effect of a general denial is to “put in issue the material allegations of the complaint.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 385.) The allegations of a complaint are admitted by simple failure to controvert them. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 431.20(a), 431.30(f); see also Fuentes v. Tucker (1947) 31 Cal. 2d 1, 5; Amusing123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 Sandwich, Inc. v. City of Palm Springs (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1130.) Material allegations of the complaint, if not controverted by the answer, are for the purposes of the action taken as true. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.20(a).) Consequently, in the instant case, ALLSTATE’s failure to controvert the allegations of the First Amended Complaint constitutes an admission of those allegations. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is verified and the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30(d).) Because the objection that the answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense is not waived by failure to raise it by demurrer (see Code Civ. Proc. § 430.80(b)), plaintiff may move for a judgment on the pleadings if such a defect exists. (See MacIsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 809, 812–813.) ALLSTATE’s verified Complaint in Intervention, serving as its answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, fails to deny the truth of the material allegations, thereby establishing them as fact and removing them from the issues to be tried. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.20(a).) Verification is an affidavit verifying the truth of matters covered by it. Its object is to assure good faith in averments or statements of a party to litigation. (Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 201, 204; Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs (1959) 169 Cal. App. 2d 645, 648.) When an allegation is admitted, the plaintiff is relieved of the need to prove that allegation at trial. (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350.) Based upon the verified allegations of the First Amended Complaint and ALLSTATE’s verified admissions in its Complaint in Intervention, it is undisputed that Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, operated, and drove their motor vehicle so as to proximately cause the motor vehicle to collide with Plaintiffs’ vehicle and, as a proximate result of the negligence, Plaintiffs were injured and damaged. These admitted facts are sufficient to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. CONCLUSION The verified pleadings in this action show that it is undisputed that Defendants123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. C09-02787 negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, operated, and drove their motor vehicle so as to proximately cause the motor vehicle to collide with Plaintiffs’ vehicle and, as a proximate result of the negligence, Plaintiffs were injured and damaged. As Intervenor for the suspended corporate Defendant NOLTE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEMOLITION, INC., ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY has failed to deny or present new matter to bar or defeat the action, and raises no issue on a material allegation of Plaintiff’s Verified First Amended Complaint Accordingly, Plaintiffs CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion and enter a judgment on the pleadings in their favor and against Intervenor ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY. Dated: November __, 2010. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN ____________________________ SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN Attorney for Plaintiffs, CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER -CASE NO. C09-02787 SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN, CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 135550 LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT K. ZIMMERMAN 613 FIRST STREET, SUITE 202 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 TELEPHONE: (925) 634-3571 FACSIMILE: (925) 634-0781 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS, CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE, Plaintiffs, vs. MEASHEL ANN NOLTE, an individual; NOLTE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEMOLITION, INC., a California corporation; BRIAN NOLTE, an individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. ____________________________________ ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor. ___________________________________/CASE NO. C09-02787 (Proposed) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Judith Craddick The motion of Plaintiffs CAROL L. STEELE and MICHAEL E. STEELE for judgment on the pleadings came on regularly for hearing by the Court on ____________________, 2010. Plaintiff appeared by counsel Scott K. Zimmerman. Intervenor ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY appeared by its counsel ____________________________. The matter having been argued and submitted and it appearing from Plaintiffs’ verified First Amended Complaint and ALLSTATE’s verified Complaint in Intervention filed herein that the verified First Amended Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER -CASE NO. C09-02787 of action and the Complaint in Intervention does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. IT IS ORDERED that the motion be, and hereby is, granted. Dated: _______________ ______________________________________ HONORABLE JUDITH CRADDICK, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Latest PostsMotionforJudgmentonthePleadings_Intervenor's Complaint in Intervention does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense
© Pamela Daly, Pamela S Daly, Paralegal | Attorney Advertising Refine your interests.
less- Pamela S Daly, Paralegal on: