Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case 37-2021-00024280-CU-PA-NC 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2021-00024280-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023 10:00:00 AM N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00024280-CU-PA-NC CHAPA VS AMAZON.COM [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 09/13/2023

The Motion to Compel Further Answers to Special Interrogatories brought by defendant Amazon Logistics Inc. (Amazon) is GRANTED. The Request for Sanctions brought by Amazon in connection with said motion is GRANTED in the amount of $1,237.50.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission brought by Amazon is GRANTED.

The Request for Sanctions brought by Amazon in connection with said motion is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,237.50.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents brought by Amazon is GRANTED. The Request for Sanctions brought by Amazon in connection with said motion is GRANTED in the amount of $1,237.50.

Said supplemental responses and monetary shall be sent to Attorneys Kirsten Cinquemani and Kyle Ellison (Attorney Cinquemani and Attorney Ellison, respectively) of the law firm of Tyson & Mendes LLP at 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 1100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 by no later than the close of business on Monday, November 13, 2023.

Factual Background This is an auto accident case, but as is evident from the briefing, there is a dispute about whether the events in question constituted two distinct accidents or one longer continuous chain of events that constitute a single accident. If the events in question were to be broken-down into two events, the instant lawsuit pertains to the second of those events, but for the sake of context, clarity, and continuity, this factual recitation will begin with the earlier event.

The incident occurred on November 5, 2020 at about 9:30 p.m. at night in National City, California.

Specifically, the 'first' of the two accidents occurred while plaintiff Francine Chapa (Plaintiff) was driving down Bay Marina Drive.

Amazon's description of the events indicate that Plaintiff was intoxicated and lost control of her vehicle, a 2007 BMW 328i (VIN No. WBAWR33507P150049) (the Vehicle), which led to her: (1) going over a raised curb of a railroad crossing gate, (2) striking a second curb, (3) and coming to a stop on the wrong side of the road facing westbound in an eastbound lane. If the accidents are treated as two separate and distinct events, that accident is not the one that is the focus of the present lawsuit.

However, in the aftermath of that event, it appears that Plaintiff exited her Vehicle and began to traverse Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009825 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CHAPA VS AMAZON.COM [IMAGED] 37-2021-00024280-CU-PA-NC certain terrain – terrain which happened to be in front of an Amazon building. As a result of this movement, which happened once Plaintiff was outside of her Vehicle, it appears that, to use the words of Plaintiff's own opposition briefing, she 'was crossing the road as a pedestrian headed to the sidewalk in front of the Amazon building...' And, as a result of this effort, the facts indicate that about six minute after the 'first' accident, Plaintiff was hit by a Mercedes Sprinter van – i.e. by an Amazon delivery van.

Again, if the events in question are split into two distinct accidents, this would be the 'second' accident – an accident in which Plaintiff was a mere pedestrian (as opposed to the driver of a vehicle as she was in the first accident) – and it is this accident that is the subject of the instant lawsuit.

Legal Issue The dispute that has arisen between the parties pertains to the legal issue of whether Civil Code § 3333.4 applies. That statute is a remedial statute designed to encourage drivers to do two things: (1) maintain an insurance policy, and (2) not drive while intoxicated. The way the remedial statute accomplishes this is it bars drivers who do not maintain insurance, or who drive while intoxicated, from seeking noneconomic damages in lawsuits arising from any accidents they may be involved in. Its specific wording reads as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), in any action to recover damages arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle, a person shall not recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages if any of the following applies: (1) The injured person was at the time of the accident operating the vehicle in violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and was convicted of that offense.

(2) The injured person was the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.

(3) The injured person was the operator of a vehicle involved in the accident and the operator can not establish his or her financial responsibility as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), an insurer shall not be liable, directly or indirectly, under a policy of liability or uninsured motorist insurance to indemnify for non-economic losses of a person injured as described in subdivision (a).

(c) In the event a person described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) was injured by a motorist who at the time of the accident was operating his or her violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and was convicted of that offense, the injured person shall not be barred from recovering non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages. (Civil Code § 3333.4 (emphasis added).) Amazon's position is that the 'second' accident 'arises out of' the 'first' accident, such that the 'second' accident falls within the ambit of Civil Code § 3333.4 because it 'aris[es] out of the operation of use of a motor vehicle...' Plaintiff, in contrast, argues that the 'second' accident was distinct and separate and was a situation in which she was a pedestrian merely crossing the street – not someone engaged in the 'operation or use of a motor vehicle.' The Court is not prepared to resolve that question today, as the Court views that question as a factual one to be resolved by a factfinder. But, what is presently before this Court is not precisely that factual question: it is a more legal question regarding whether or not Plaintiff should have to disclose the insurance status of her Vehicle.

This issue appears somewhat redundant given that Civil Code § 3333.4 applies separately and independently in cases where either a driver is intoxicated or a driver is uninsured. Amazon's factual recitation indicates that Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the incident, which would be sufficient to trigger application of Civil Code § 3333.4 independent of whether Plaintiff was also uninsured.

Nonetheless, should Amazon fail to prove-up such intoxication at trial, evidence that Plaintiff is uninsured Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009825 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CHAPA VS AMAZON.COM [IMAGED] 37-2021-00024280-CU-PA-NC would be necessary to prove-up application of Civil Code § 3333.4 – provided that, factually, it could be established that the injuries that occurred in the 'second' accident arise out of the operation of a motor vehicle. Given that that question will need to be answered by a factfinder, the Court finds that the question of whether of not Plaintiff was insured is relevant to the issues that will be raised at trial.

Plaintiff notably also objects to production of her insurance information on grounds of privacy. The Court rejects this argument to the extent it is being used to refuse to produce evidence regarding Plaintiff's insurance, and, to the extent that privacy is a concern, the parties can meet and confer and submit a stipulation for a protective order.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009825