Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV40267, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40267    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    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

MOVING PAPERS 

1.      Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication or Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

2.      Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

3.      Request to Take Judicial Notice

4.      Declaration of Mohamed Shumsdean Ismail

5.      Declaration of Counsel Richard Nagby

OPPOSITION PAPERS 

1.      None filed. 

REPLY PAPERS  

1.      None filed.

BACKGROUND

On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff Amanda Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Sufi Ismail, Cars4Less, Salvador Cisneros, and Does 1 to 100 for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges that the motor vehicle accident occurred on September 24, 2020, on the 110 freeway. The defendants who operated the vehicle were alleged to be unknown. (Complaint, 4.) Cars4Less was alleged to employ the person driving the vehicle, to be the owner of the vehicle, and the party who entrusted the vehicle.

Defendants Sufi Ismail and Ifus Global USA, Inc. dba Cars4Less (erroneously sued as Cars4Less, Inc.) (“Defendants”) now move for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.  Defendants argue that they are a used car dealership who sold the subject car prior to the accident, and thus had no ownership interest in the car or agency relationship with the driver.

Any opposition was due on or before February 27, 2024. 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

 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.)  

Vehicle Code section 5602 provides the following:

“An owner who has made a bona fide sale or transfer of a vehicle and has delivered possession of the vehicle to a purchaser is not, by reason of any of the provisions of this code, the owner of the vehicle so as to be subject to civil liability or criminal liability for the parking, abandoning, or operation of the vehicle thereafter by another when the selling or transferring owner, in addition to that delivery and that bona fide sale or transfer, has fulfilled either of the following requirements:

(a) He or she has made proper endorsement and delivery of the certificate of ownership as provided in this code.

(b) He or she has delivered to the department or has placed in the United States mail, addressed to the department, either of the following documents:

(1) The notice as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 4456 or Section 5900 or 5901.

(2) The appropriate documents and fees for registration of the vehicle to the new owner pursuant to the sale or transfer.”

Here, Defendants set forth the following facts:

-          The plaintiff identifies the opposing vehicle allegedly owned by the moving parties as a 2008 Ford Mustang being driven by Salvador Cisneros, hereinafter the “subject vehicle”. (UMF 7.)

-          The subject vehicle was subject to a bona fide sale to Salvador Cisneros on September 16, 2020 before the date of the accident with the plaintiff. (UMF 8.)

-          All of the documents legally required by law and the DMV needed to transfer the vehicle from the moving parties to the buyer Salvador Cisneros were prepared and handled properly so that the transfer was effective on September 16, 2020, before the subject accident. This includes the giving of the written title (pink slip) and possession of the vehicle to buyer Cisneros. (UMF 9.)

-          The only legal relationship between the moving parties and the buyer of the vehicle Salvador Cisneros was a commercial transaction in which Cisneros made a bona fide purchase of the subject vehicle. (UMF 10.)

-          Salvador Cisneros was not employee of the moving parties. (UMF 11.)

-          Salvador Cisneros was not hired as an agent of the moving parties of the moving parties. (UMF 12.)

-          The sale of the subject vehicle to Mr. Cisneros was a full and complete sale paid for by credit card. The moving parties did not retain a security interest or any other interest in the vehicle after the sale date of September 16, 2020. (UMF 15.)

-          There were no mechanical problems or issues with the subject vehicle that would have caused or contributed to the accident while in the possession of the moving parties. The vehicle was subject to the necessary repairs and was test driven for about 60 miles before the sale to Cisneros. (UMF 18.)

-          The plaintiff has no information that a malfunction or defect in the subject 2008 Ford Mustang caused the incident mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint. (UMF 29.)

-          The plaintiff has no factual information that the subject Ford Mustang vehicle was not properly maintained and was not roadworthy which allegedly caused the subject accident with the plaintiff. (UMF 32.)

Defendants have met their initial burden of showing there is no triable dispute of material fact regarding ownership of the vehicle and whether the driver was an agent of Defendants’. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and therefore has not established that there is a triable issue of material fact. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants Sufi Ismail and Ifus Global USA, Inc. dba Cars4Less’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendants shall file and serve a proposed judgment within 10 days.

Defendants are ordered to give notice and shall file a proof of service of such.