Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV16849, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16849    Hearing Date: September 4, 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; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

2.     Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

3.     Declaration of Kathryn J. Harvey

OPPOSITION PAPERS

1.     Plaintiff’s Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of John Ksajikian

2.     Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement

3.     Objection to Evidence

REPLY PAPERS

1.     Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition

2.     Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Separate Statement

3.     Declaration of Steven Blum

4.     Objection to Evidence

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Alejandro Osornio-Cano and Janet Cruz filed a complaint against Defendants Karen Agnes Clark, Steven Blum, and Does 1 to 50 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges that on May 23, 2020, Plaintiffs were traveling southbound on Pacific Coast Highway in Santa Monica, when they were rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Defendant Karen Agnes Clark (“Clark”). Defendant Steven Blum is alleged to have owned and entrusted the motor vehicle that Clark was driving. (Complaint, 4-5.)

On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff Alejandro Osornio-Cano was dismissed from the complaint, leaving Janet Cruz (“Plaintiff”) as the sole plaintiff in this case.

Defendant Steven Blum (“Defendant”) now moves for summary judgment, arguing that he is not liable since he did not drive the subject vehicle and was not the registered owner. 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.) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) ¿“[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.) .)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”  (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

“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

Plaintiff’s Objections numbers 1 and 3 are sustained. (Evid. Code § 1200.) In reply, Defendant argues his evidence is admissible “under the applicable standards set forth in C.C.P. §437c(c) and (d)” but fails to explain further. (See Reply, 3.) However, under these subsections, the Court is required to rule based on the evidence in the moving papers pursuant to evidentiary objections. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c (c), (d) [“the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court . . . . Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence . . . .”] [emphasis added].)

Plaintiff’s Objection number 4 is sustained.

The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s remaining objections as they have no effect on the ruling herein.

The Court declines to rule on Defendant’s objections as they have no effect on the ruling herein.

DISCUSSION

Negligence and Negligent Entrustment

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.)

Generally, “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] [alteration in original; citation omitted].) 

Here, it is undisputed that on May 23, 2020, at approximately 10:40 p.m., a two-vehicle accident occurred at the 1100 block of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Santa Monica, California. (UMF 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff does not dispute that at that approximate time, Defendant Karen Agnes Clark was driving a 2017 Tesla Model X alone, behind the Plaintiffs on PCH which then collided with the rear-end of Plaintiff’s vehicle. (See Pl. Resp. UMF 3-4.)

In light of the evidentiary rulings herein, Defendant has not produced admissible evidence sufficient to meet his initial burden.

In reply, Defendant has produced a new, conclusory declaration by Defendant, stating that he is informed and believes that Karen Clark is the sole registered owner of the subject vehicle and that he has never “owned or had any ownership interest” in the vehicle. (Blum Decl. ¶ 2.) “[T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case…” (Plenger v. Alza Corp. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 349, 362, fn. 8.) Moreover, no attempt was made to authenticate the extrinsic evidence.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Steven Blum’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file a proof of service of such.