Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV34493, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34493    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff, Nicholas Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Judson Greene (“Greene”) and EAN Holdings, LLC (“EAN”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accident.  Plaintiff has filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (“Enterprise”) as Doe 1.  The complaint alleges a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. 

Enterprise now moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

2. Motion for Summary Judgment

a. Moving Argument

Enterprise asserts that at the time of the accident, Greene was driving a rental vehicle from Enterprise.  Enterprise contends that Greene was not its employee, that no malfunction or defect in the rental vehicle caused the accident, that Greene held a valid license at the time of the accident, and that Greene was not incompetent to drive the car.  Enterprise asserts that Plaintiff’s claims against it are based on Enterprise’s ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident that Greene rented, but such claims are barred by 49 U.S.C. § 30106- the Graves Amendment. 

b. Opposing Argument

Plaintiff argues that there is a triable issue of fact as to who the owner of the vehicle is as defined by the Graves Amendment, as Enterprise does not establish who owned the vehicle.  Further, Plaintiff contends that the savings clause of the Graves Amendment prohibits the application of the statute in this case. 

c. Continuance

            Enterprise’s separate statement and declarations filed in support of the motion for summary judgment are rife with typographical errors.  This is especially so for Enterprise’s counsel’s declaration submitted with the motion.  For example, while there are various exhibits attached to defense counsel’s declaration, defense counsel merely states “Attachment[s] ‘[B-E]’ [are] a true and correct copy of its original.”  There is absolutely no indication as what any of the attachments are.  Consequently, no documents are identified or authenticated.  While Plaintiff raises no objections to this, the court would like counsel to correct the significant typographical errors.

            In the opposition, Plaintiff does not challenge that Greene was driving a rental vehicle at the time of the incident and does not otherwise assert that Greene was Enterprise’s agent or employee at the time of the accident.  However, although there appears to be no dispute concerning Greene’s relationship with Enterprise, neither party asserts such in their separate statement of undisputed material facts.  The parties should confirm in their statement of undisputed material facts whether there is genuine dispute about this.

            In order for the parties to correct the pleadings filed in connection with this motion, the court will continue the motion.  Enterprise is ordered to file new documents curing the above defects at least 16 court days before the continued hearing date.  Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition at least nine court days before the hearing. 

Defendant Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment is continued to October 5, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.   

Moving Defendant 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 8^th day of August 2022