Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV45421, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45421    Hearing Date: September 13, 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 Judgment

2.     Memorandum of Points and Authorities

3.     Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

4.     Declarations and Documentary Evidence in Support

OPPOSITION PAPERS

1.     Plaintiff’s Opposition

2.     Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Material Facts

3.     Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Evidence

4.     Declaration of Michael Leff in Support

REPLY PAPERS

1.     Reply to Opposition

2.     Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence

3.     Declaration of Warren B. Campbell

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff Francesca Montenotte (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Roger Beepot, Lyft Inc., and Does 1 to 25 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges that on June 26, 2018, she was injured in a motor vehicle collision as a passenger in a Lyft ride, operated by Defendant Roger Beepot. (Complaint ¶ 12.)

Defendant Roger Beepot (“Defendant”) now moves for summary judgment, arguing there are no facts showing that Defendant breached his duty or caused Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[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”].)       

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s objections 1-2 and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s remaining objections to the Declaration of Roger Beepot.[1]

Plaintiff also appears to make evidentiary objections to Defendant’s facts in his separate statement. The Court declines to rule on these evidentiary objections for failure to comply with the procedural requirements. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b)-(c) [requirement of two separate documents, i.e., evidentiary objections and a proposed order on those objections].)

Defendant’s evidentiary objections appear to be objections to Plaintiff’s separate statement of undisputed facts. To the extent the objections are to the evidence cited, the Beepot deposition, the objections are overruled.

DISCUSSION

Negligence­

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: (1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of that duty; and (3) harm to the plaintiff caused by that breach. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142.)

“ ‘Breach of duty is usually a fact issue for the jury; if the circumstances permit a reasonable doubt whether the defendant's conduct violates the standard of due care, the doubt must be resolved by the jury as an issue of fact rather than of law by the court. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Constance B. v. State of California (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 200, 207 (“Constance”).)

“ ‘[T]he decision whether that breach caused the damage (that is, causation in fact) is again within the jury’s domain; but where reasonable men will not dispute the absence of causality, the court may take the decision from the jury and treat the question as one of law. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Constance, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at 207 [italics in original].)¿Causation is established by showing that a defendant’s breach of duty was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff’s injury, and there is no legal rule relieving defendant from liability. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.) Defendant’s negligence is the actual cause, or cause in fact, of plaintiff’s injury if it is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. (Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1052.) “In other words, [the] plaintiff must show some substantial link or nexus between omission and injury.” (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 778; see also Thompson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1371 [“[P]roof of causation cannot be based upon speculation and conjecture, and that a mere possibility of causation is insufficient.”].)¿¿ 

            Here, Defendant sets forth the following facts:

-        In the Accident, the car in which plaintiff was riding was rearended while stopped at a stoplight behind another stopped car waiting for the traffic light to turn green. (UMF 2.)

-        At the time of the Accident, Beepot was driving as a Lyft driver transporting passengers to a location in Santa Monica utilizing the Lyft rideshare application. (UMF 4.)

-        Plaintiff and her two friends had their seat belts fastened at the time of the Accident. (UMF 6.)

-        During the transport, Beepot had to stop his car at a red light at the subject intersection. (UMF 9.)

-        There was nothing unusual, sudden, or unexpected in the way in which Beepot came to a stop. (UMF 10.)

-        Beepot decelerated his car gradually until it came to a stop a safe distance behind the car that stopped at the red light in front of his. (UMF 11.)

-        Beepot was completely within his lane of travel while he decelerated and came to a stop. (UMF 12.)

-        While Beepot’s car was at a complete stop at the intersection with his foot pressing the brake, he was waiting for his traffic light to turn green. (UMF 13.)

-        While at a complete stop, Beepot’s car was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Lorenzo Lopez. (UMF 14.)

-        Beepot’s car was stopped for about one minute before the Accident occurred.

-        There is nothing Beepot could have done differently that would have prevented the Accident or plaintiff’s claimed injuries.[2] (UMF 20.)

Defendant has set forth sufficient evidence that he was at a complete stop at a red light and was rear-ended by another vehicle. However, Defendant’s declaration regarding the seat belts[3] and the lack of mechanical problems with the car lacks foundation and constitutes improper lay opinion testimony.[4] Accordingly, Defendant has failed to meet his burden regarding the lack of defects in the car.[5]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant Roger Beepot’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

            Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling and file a proof of service of such.