Judge Audra Mori, Case 19STCV31441 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Valentin Delgadillo (“Valentin”) and Eloy Delgadillo (“Eloy”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Anthony Castillo and Daisy Bolton for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence against defendants. Plaintiff has dismissed Daisy Bolton from the action.

Defendant Anthony Castillo (“Defendant” or “Castillo”) now moves for summary judgment. Any opposition to the motion was due by August 23, 2022. Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion on August 26, 2022; as of September 1, 2022, no opposition has been received.

Defendant Castillo argues he is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs cannot establish, as a matter of law, the mandatory elements of their claims against Defendant. Specifically, Defendant asserts that on December 21 and 22, 2022, the Court ordered Defendant’s requests for admissions (“RFAs”) be deemed admitted against each Valentin and Eloy, and such admissions are fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims.

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).) Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.” (Id. at §437c(o)(2).) A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.) Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A defendant moving for summary judgment must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Id. at §437c(p).) A defendant may discharge this burden by furnishing either (1) affirmative evidence of the required facts or (2) discovery responses conceding that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish an essential element of the plaintiff's case. If a defendant chooses the latter option, he or she must present evidence “and not simply point out that plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence….” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4^th at 865-66.)

[A] defendant may simply show the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action “by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Id. at p. 854.) Thus, rather than affirmatively disproving or negating an element (e.g., causation), a defendant moving for summary judgment has the option of presenting evidence reflecting the plaintiff does not possess evidence to prove that element. “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing” to support an essential element of his case. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 855.) Under the latter approach, a defendant's initial evidentiary showing may “consist of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses, or admissions by the plaintiff in deposition or in response to requests for admission that he or she has not discovered anything that supports an essential element of the cause of action.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) In other words, a defendant may show the plaintiff does not possess evidence to support an element of the cause of action by means of presenting the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses from which an absence of evidence may be reasonably inferred. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.)

Thus, a moving defendant has two means by which to shift the burden of proof under the summary judgment statute: “The defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon. [Citation.] [Or a]lternatively, the defendant may utilize the tried and true technique of negating (‘disproving’) an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” (Brantly v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598.)

Until the moving defendant has discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come forward with any evidence. Once the moving defendant has discharged its burden as to a particular cause of action, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action. (Id. at §437c(p)(2).) On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's supporting documents are strictly construed and those of his opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21.)

“ ‘The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.’ [Citation.]” (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.)

Here, Plaintiffs alleged they sustained damages as a result of a two-vehicle accident on June 12, 2019. (UMF 1.) Defendant Castillo served RFAs, sets one, on each Valentin and Eloy on May 20, 2021. (UMF 3-4.) Defendant then filed a motion to deem the RFAs admitted, which the Court granted against each Valentin and Eloy on December 21 and 22, 2021, respectively. (UMF 5-8.) Plaintiffs have each admitted that they caused the subject accident, that they took no steps to avoid causing the accident, and that they could have stopped before the accident. (UMF 9-10, 16-17.) Moreover, Plaintiffs admit they suffered no injuries from the accident, that Defendant is no at fault for any alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs have no ongoing pain or present physical limitation resulting from the accident, and that Plaintiffs require no future medical care. (UMF 11-13, 18-20.) Plaintiffs further admitted they suffered no injuries that caused a loss of wages, income or impairment of earning capacity, and that they have paid nothing out of pocket for medical treatment as a result of the accident. (UMF 14-15, 21-22.)

The evidence is sufficient to meet Defendant’s moving burden to show he is entitled to judgment as a matter on Plaintiffs’ claims. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact. Because Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, Plaintiff necessarily fails to meet the shifted burden.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court