Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV11833, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11833    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Romel Gewarges (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Hugo Anibarro (“Anibarro”), Ana Mena (“Mena”), and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

Defendants Anibarro and Mena (collectively, “Defendants”) now move for summary adjudication as to “the issue of future damages.”  (Mot. at p. 2:1.)  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply.

2. Motion for Summary Adjudication

a. Moving Argument

Defendants assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to future damages because Plaintiff was not Proposition 213 compliant at the time of the accident.  Defendants contend that Plaintiff has acknowledged that his recovery of damages is thus limited by Civil Code § 3333.4, but Plaintiff is still seeking to receiver future damages of more than $5 million in an attempt to circumvent this statute.     

b. Opposing Argument

Plaintiff argues that he is not making a claim for non-economic damages, and whether Plaintiff was Proposition 213 compliant is irrelevant to his claim for future medical expenses.  Further, Plaintiff avers that Defendants fail to meet their moving burden to show they are entitled adjudication in this case. 

c. Evidentiary Objections

Defendants, in their reply, submit five objections to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel submitted with the opposition.  The objections are not material to the disposition of the motion, and thus, the Court declines to rule on them at this time.  (CCP § 437c(q).)

d. Burdens on Summary Judgment/Adjudication

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).)  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.)

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.)

e. Summary Adjudication of Claim for Damages

A party may move for summary adjudication as follows:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code[1], or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. 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.

(CCP § 437c(f)(1) [emphasis added].)

Accordingly, “Summary adjudication motions are restricted to an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for punitive damages, or an issue of duty.”  (Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1996) 41 Cal.App.1538, 1542 [disagreed with on different grounds in by Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 204].)  Moreover, summary adjudication of damages, other than punitive damages, is not permissible.  (DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 419-22 (“DeCastro”).)  CCP § 437c(f)(1) does not permit summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not dispose of an entire cause of action.  (Id. at 422.)

In this case, Defendants seek to summarily adjudicate Plaintiff’s claim for future economic damages on the basis that Plaintiff has admitted that his recovery of damages is limited by Civil Code § 3333.4, (Mot. UMF 2), and thus, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s prayer for future economic damages is impermissible.[2] 

However, “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), does not permit summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not dispose of an entire cause of action.”  (DeCastro, 47 Cal.App.4th at 422.)  This is exactly what Defendants are seeking in their motion for summary adjudication, and Defendants do not cite any authority holding that summary adjudication as to the issue of future economic damages is proper.  Summary adjudication is a drastic remedy and any doubts a judge has about the propriety of summary adjudication must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 900.)  Moreover, the Court’s authority to grant summary adjudication is limited by statute.  (DeCastro, 47 Cal.App.4th at 423.)[3]  Therefore, under DeCastro the motion must be denied. 

Although DeCastro considered an older version of § 437c(f)(1), the relevant language in subdivision (f)(1) has not changed since DeCastro.[4]  In addition, amendments to the Code since then show that DeCastro’s holding remains correct.  The Code makes clear that summary adjudication of damages under subsection (f) is only appropriate if the claim is for punitive damages or if the claim for compensatory damages disposes of an entire cause of action.  Further, CCP § 437c(t) states that, “[n]otwithstanding subdivision (f), a party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to this subdivision” under certain specified conditions.  A motion under subsection (t) requires a stipulation by the parties as to the issues to be adjudicated and a declaration from the parties that the motion is in the interest of judicial economy.  These requirements have not been complied with for this motion.

Therefore, this motion is not proper under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(f)(1) or (t) and is denied on that basis. The Court does not reach the parties’ remaining arguments at this time.

3. Conclusion

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

Defendants are 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 16^th day of September 2022