Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV47012, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47012    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant City of Baldwin Park's Motion for Summary Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiffs Jacob Johnny Dominguez (“Jacob”), Raul Dominguez (“Raul”), Lorenzo Dominguez (“Lorenzo”), Fabviola Rosales (“Rosales”), Anna Marie Martinez (“Martinez”), Linda Martinez Quinonez (“Quinonez”), Oscar Escarmillo (“Oscar”) and Marie Escamillo (“Marie”) against Defendants City of Balwin Park (“Baldwin Park”), City of West Covina (“West Covina”), State of California (“State”) and Salvador Gomez (“Gomez”) for motor vehicle negligence and wrongful death. 

On August 24, 2021, the State and West Covina both filed answers. On December 17, 2021, Baldwin Park filed an answer. 

On July 27, 2022, the Court dismissed Rosales, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. 

On July 7, 2022, Baldwin Park filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on September 20, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for April 24, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

The State requests the Court grant summary judgment.

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.)

Under Vehicle Code § 17004.7 (b)(1), “A public agency employing peace officers that adopts and promulgates a written policy on, and provides regular and periodic training on an annual basis for, vehicular pursuits complying with subdivisions (c) and (d) is immune from liability for civil damages for personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the collision of a vehicle being operated by an actual or suspected violator of the law who is being, has been, or believes he or she is being or has been, pursued in a motor vehicle by a peace officer employed by the public entity.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs allege that Gomez illegally obtained a Red Jeep from a third-party; police were notified of the crime and began to search for the subject vehicle and Gomez. The third-party informed police that she left her phone on, with close to full battery, inside the vehicle, meaning she was able to track the vehicle. Baldwin Park PD contacted West Covina PD and California Highway Patrol to alert them to the vehicle. Police found Gomez and demanded he pull over; Gomez refused and a high-speed chase occurred. During this chase, Gomez and police ran a red light, all colliding with Decedent and Jacob’s vehicle. Plaintiffs allege that no police cars had their police lights or sirens on at the time of the collision.

Baldwin Park argues that the Baldwin Park PD was not involved in the actual chase in question, and thus did not breach any duty or cause injury to Plaintiffs. The pursuit report notes only West Covina officers engaged in the pursuit; BP officers merely reported the police investigation into the subject vehicle to other law enforcement agencies. (UMF 5.) The Court agrees; the evidence indicates that the BPPD were not involved in the subject event. As such, Baldwin Park has met its burden. Given that this motion is unopposed, the Court grants this motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant City of Baldwin Park'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.