Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case 22STCV09577 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV09577, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09577 Hearing Date: April 4, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendant Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff Irma Leticia Vallardare-Bonales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (“Ryder”) and Adam Torre Woods (“Woods”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On May 12, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.

On January 6, 2023, Ryder filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on March 22, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to April 4, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for September 15, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Ryder request the Court grant summary judgment on the basis that both causes of action are barred by the Graves Amendment.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP § 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, 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.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Once the defendant has met that 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 a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

49 U.S.C. §30106, also known as the Graves Amendment, provides: (a) In General. - An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if - (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner). (b) Financial Responsibility Laws. - Nothing in this section supersedes the law of any State or political subdivision thereof - (1) imposing financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle; or (2) imposing liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a truck driven by Woods. (UMF 1.) Woods was employed by third-party Rival Transport, Inc. (“Rival”). (UMF 2.) Ryder owns the subject truck and leased it to Rival via a written lease agreement. (UMF 4.) Ryder is engaged in the business of renting/leasing motor vehicles. (UMF 5.) As Ryder was not Woods’ employer, Ryder’s liability is limited to vicarious liability stemming from ownership of the subject truck. (UMF 3.)

The Graves Amendment prevents a rental or leasing car company, and its affiliates, from being held vicariously liable for the acts/omissions of its renters. Under the Graves Amendment, a rental or leasing car company can only be held liable for damages caused by rental car drivers when a rental car company commits independent acts of negligence or criminal wrongdoing. There are no allegations that Ryder improperly or negligently maintained the leased vehicle prior to the subject accident, nor of any other criminal acts or negligence. As there is no evidence of independent acts of negligence or wrongdoing, the Graves amendment bars claims against Ryder for the actions of Woods.

Ryder has met its burden. The Court grants summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.