Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV44775, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV44775    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Adam Glick and Mary Glick (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Vista General Engineering Company, Inc. (“Vista”) and Arturo Orozco Torres (“Torres”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiffs allege that Torres was in the course and scope of his employment with Vista at the time of the accident. 

Defendant Vista now moves for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Vista filed a reply.

Vista asserts that Plaintiff’s admissions establish that Vista was not negligent, and that Torres was not acting within the course and scope of his employment with Vista when the accident occurred.  Vista provides that its request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, served on Plaintiff were deemed admitted, and it argues that the admissions demonstrate that Vista is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Plaintiffs provide that at the time that Vista served its RFAs, Plaintiffs’ counsel was working remotely due to the Covid-19 pandemic and due to counsel’s office burning down one year earlier.  Plaintiffs state Vista’s RFAs fell through the cracks, and that Plaintiffs have filed a motion for relief from the deemed admissions, which is set to be heard on March 8, 2023.  Plaintiffs contend that the granting of their motion seeking relief from the deemed admissions would moot the instant motion.  Further, Plaintiffs argue that Vista is vicariously liable for the accident. 

Vista, in reply, argues that Plaintiffs’ admissions establish that Plaintiff’ cannot maintain their causes of action against Vista, and Vista argues that Plaintiffs cannot rely on their untimely motion for relief to deny Vista’s motion for summary judgment.  Vista asserts that Plaintiffs cannot contradict their admissions.

Vista’s moving papers and evidence show that Vista is relying almost exclusively on its RFAs that were deemed admitted against Plaintiff Adam Glick.  However, Plaintiffs currently have a motion to be relieved from the relevant deemed admissions on calendar for March 8, 2023.  Therefore, the interests of justice would best be served by continuing Vista’s motion for summary judgment to be heard after Plaintiffs’ motion seeking relief can be considered on the merits after briefing. 

The hearing on Vista’s motion for summary judgment is continued to _______________ at 1:30 p.m. in this Department.  No further briefing is permitted. 

Defendant Vista is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 9^th day of February 2023