Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV33573, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33573    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Jason Duarte-Burbank (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Brenda Felix, Olga Felix, and Does 1 to 25, (Defendants) for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges that on September 17, 2019, Plaintiff was injured when Defendant Brenda Felix (Brenda) negligently rear-ended Plaintiff on the freeway. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Olga Felix co-owned the vehicle Brenda was driving and entrusted it to her. (See Complaint at MV-2.)

Defendant Olga Felix now moves for summary judgment.  Any opposition was due on or before August 24, 2023. To date, no opposition has been filed.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c).)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Ibid.; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474 [summary judgment standards held by Aguilar apply to summary adjudication motions].)  Further, in line with Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., “[o]n a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no discretion to exercise.  If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the challenged causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable issue of fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320.)

“On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues.  Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839 [cleaned up].)  Further, “the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true.  Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.” (Id. at p. 840 [cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].) 

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues she is entitled to summary judgment because the evidence establishes that Olga Felix was not the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Defendant provides the declarations of Carla M. Barcelos-Pettit, Brenda Felix, and Olga Felix in support thereof.

 Negligence/ Negligent Entrustment

The elements of a negligence cause of action are the existence of a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.  (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Additionally, “it is generally recognized that one who places or entrusts his [or her] motor vehicle in the hands of one whom he [or she] knows, or from the circumstances is charged with knowing, is incompetent or unfit to drive, may be held liable for an injury inflicted by the use made thereof by that driver, provided the plaintiff can establish that the injury complained of was proximately caused by the driver's disqualification, incompetency, inexperience or recklessness.” (Flores v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1063) (quoting Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 703, 708.)  

Here, Defendant Olga Felix sets forth the following undisputed material facts:

-          Brenda Felix was driving the vehicle involved in the incident. (UMF 2; Decl. Brenda Felix ¶ 4.)

-          Olga Felix was not driving either of the vehicles involved in the accident. (UMF 11; Decl. Brenda Felix ¶ 4, Decl. Olga Felix ¶ 8.)

-          Other than merely being the named insured on the policy that covered the vehicle owned by Jesus Felix, that Brenda Felix was driving at the time of the subject incident, Olga Felix bears no relationship to the subject incident. (UMF 6; Decl. Brenda Felix, Decl. Olga Felix ¶ 7.) 

-          Olga Felix was not the registered owner of any vehicle involved in the accident. (UMF 12; Decl. Brenda Felix ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, Decl. Olga Felix ¶¶ 7, 11.)

Defendant Olga Felix has met her initial burden of showing there is no triable dispute of material fact. The burden then switches to Plaintiff to put forth evidence that there is a triable dispute of material fact. However, as Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the burden is not met.

Thus, summary judgment is granted as to Defendant Olga Felix.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Olga Felix’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant Olga Felix is ordered to give notice and shall file a proof of service of such.