Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV06717, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06717    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiffs Dwayne Inyard Jr., Destiny Inyard, Estate of Cheryl                                                         Walker

Motion for Summary Judgment.

The court considered the moving papers and opposition in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a car accident in which the mother of Plaintiffs Dwayne Inyard and Destiny Inyard (Plaintiffs) died. Non-party Efrain Antonio (Non-party) was responsible for the accident.

            In 2003, Non-party was sentenced to five years in California state prison. The court ordered a restitution fine but did not enter a defined monetary amount for a restitution order against Non-party and in favor of Plaintiffs. (Rosvall Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. 2, p. 4.)

            On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant). Plaintiffs went on to amend the complaint twice. In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs state a cause of action for negligence. Plaintiffs allege that (1) Defendant was negligent in failing to collect on a direct restitution order against Non-party, (2) Defendant ignored California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) guidelines for collecting on the restitution order, (3) Defendant was responsible for enforcing the direct restitution order before collecting on the restitution fine, (4) Defendant was the entity in control of Non-party and his restitution orders and fines during and after his incarceration, (5) Defendant should have transferred all of Non-party’s files regarding the owed debt to the Franchise Tax Board of California (FTB) for garnishment after his release, and (6) Defendant’s failed collection resulted in Plaintiffs’ injuries.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The court grants Defendant’s requests for judicial notice.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “¿[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted 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 a judgment as a matter of law.¿” (¿¿Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (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¿¿.) If the moving party carries this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (¿¿Ibid.¿¿) 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¿¿.)

            A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must show that there is no defense to any of the asserted causes of action and does so by proving each element of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a)(1), (p)(1).)

DISCUSSION 

            Defendant contends that the court should grant its motion for summary judgment because Defendant did not owe Plaintiffs a duty to collect on a restitution order. “A plaintiff in any negligence suit must demonstrate a legal duty to use care, a breach of such legal duty, and that the breach is the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” (Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568, 573.) “Where the defendant [does not] sit in a relation to the [plaintiff] that . . . creates an affirmative duty to protect the plaintiff from harm . . . the defendant owes not legal duty to the plaintiff.” (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 216.) Defendant proffers evidence that the CDCR is the entity responsible for collecting funds from convicted persons owing restitution and distributing such funds to the victims. (Request for Judicial Notice; Ex. A.) Since the CDCR is an agency of the State of California, not the County of Los Angeles, Defendant does not collect or distribute restitution funds or orders. (Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4; Ex. B.) Moreover, for parolees and discharged offenders, the Franchise Tax Board works as the collection agent for CDCR. (Request for Judicial Notice; Ex. D.) And since the TFB is an agency of the State of California, not the County of Los Angeles, Defendant does not collect or distribute restitution funds or orders from parolees and discharged offenders, either. (Anderson Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. B.) Lastly, California Superior Court judges determine the amount of a restitution order in the first place. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4; Anderson Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. C.) In light of the foregoing, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs cannot establish that it owed them a duty to collect on a restitution order. Plaintiffs, for their part, have provided no evidence to the contrary. Thus, there is no triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty here. Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claim for negligence.

            As Defendant notes, though, Plaintiffs may still move the court to set an amount for a restitution order. “A victim’s right to restitution is . . . a constitutional one; it cannot be bargained away or limited.” (People v. Gross (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1318.) “[W]hen the economic losses of a victim cannot be ascertained at the time of the sentencing . . . the court shall retain jurisdiction over a person subject to a restitution order for purposes of imposing or modifying restitution until such time as the losses may be determined.” (Pen. Code, § 1202.46.) “On the motion of a victim, a court may at any time correct a sentence that is rendered invalid due to the omission of a restitution order.” (Ibid.) Plaintiffs may therefore seek restitution by another avenue.

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿May 15, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court