Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV13675, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV13675 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: 28
Defendant Angel Rosales’s Motion for
Summary Judgment
Having considered the moving,
opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
April 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Antonio Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), Rodner
Gonzalez-Gonzalez (“Rodner”) and Santa Gonzalez-Gonzalez (“Santa”) filed this
action against Defendants Oscar Mendez-Luiz (“Mendez”) and Angel Rosales
(“Rosales”) for motor vehicle negligence, wrongful death and survival action
sounding in negligence. Gonzlez was later dismissed as a Plaintiff. Plaintiffs
later amended the complaint to include Defendants Hayk Arakelyan (“Arakelyan”),
Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier”) and Anna
Saghatelyan (“Saghatelyan”).
On
January 3, 2022, Mendez filed an answer. On August 17, 2022, Mendez-Luiz filed
a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Uber and Rasier for comparative
indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief.
On
April 29, 2022, Uber and Rasier filed an answer. On July 18, 2022, Uber and
Raiser field a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Mendez for implied
indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief. On August 17, 2022, Mendez
filed an answer.
On
June 9, 2022, Arakelyan filed an answer. On September 14, 2022, Saghatelyan
filed an answer.
On
August 12, 2022, Rosales filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on
October 26, 2022. The Court continued the hearing to December 9, 2022. On
September 22, 2022, Uber and Rasier filed a Joinder to Rosales’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. On November 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On
December 2, 2022, Rosales filed a reply.
Trial
is currently set for February 3, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Rosales requests the Court grant
summary judgment on the basis that there is no dispute as to material facts. Uber
and Rasier join with this request.
Plaintiffs request the Court deny
the motion.
OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff’s
Objections are SUSTAINED.
Uber/Rasier’s
Objections are SUSTAINED.
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.)
The elements of a cause of action
for negligence are well established. They are: (1) a legal duty to use due
care; (2) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (3) the breach as the proximate or
legal cause of the resulting injury. Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12
Cal.4th 913, 917 (1996). Negligence per se depends on the violation of a
specific duty imposed by statute. Steinle v. City and County of San
Francisco, 230 F.Supp.3d 994 (2017). Where a standard of conduct of a
reasonable person is expressly defined by legislative enactment or judicial
decision, the failure to conform to that standard is negligence per se. Law
v. Shoate, 178 Cal.App.2d 739 (1960); Lotta v. City of Oakland, 67
Cal.App.2d 411 (1994). Negligence per se is simply a codified evidentiary
doctrine, and thus, the doctrine of negligence per se does not establish tort
liability. Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 29 F.Supp.3d 1294 (2014). Under
the negligence per se doctrine of California law, violation of a statute gives
rise to a presumption of negligence in the absence of justification or excuse. Coppola
v. Smith, 935 F.Supp.2d 993 (2013).
A claim for negligence per se
requires showing that: (1) defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or
regulation; (2) the violation proximately caused injury; (3) the injury
resulted from an occurrence the enactment was designed to prevent; and (4) the
plaintiff was a member of the class of persons the statute was intended to
protect. Safari Club International v. Rudolph, 862 F.3d 1113 (2017); Coppola
v. Smith, 935 F.Supp.2d 993 (2013); Vollaro v. Lispi, 224
Cal.App.4th 93 (2014); Spriesterbach v. Holland, 215 Cal.App.4th 255
(2013).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs allege that Mendez negligently
failed to stop at an intersection, resulting in an accident that caused damage
to Decedent. Immediately prior to the accident, Mendez alleges he was
threatened with a gun by the driver of a black SUV. (UMF 3.) He claims that he
ran through the stop sign at the subject intersection in fear for his life.
(UMF 5.) Rosales, who was working as an Uber driver, was driving a vehicle
through the subject intersection and claims to have had the right of way at the
time of the incident; there were no stop signs or traffic lights on the street
he was traveling on. (UMF 6-7, 26.) Mendez collided with Rosales at the subject
intersection, causing Mendez’s vehicle to spin and swerve towards pedestrian Decedent
and Rodner. (UMF 26, 34-35.) Mendez’s vehicle collided with Decedent and
Rodner, resulting in injuries that eventually led to Decedent’s death. (UMF 35,
42-45.)
Plaintiffs
allege that Rosales was negligent per se, as he was speeding when the subject
incident occurred. The speed limit of the area around the subject intersection
is 25 mph. (UMF 12-13.) Rosales claims he was not speeding nor driving
recklessly at the time of the incident; he specifically states he was driving
at a rate of 24.9 mph just 4.8 seconds prior to the collision. (UMF 28-29.) According
to the crash report, his speed never exceeded 25 mph prior to the accident; he
was only traveling 18 mph immediately prior to the crash (Ex. N.) Rosales was
not intoxicated at the time of the incident. (UMF 16.)
In order to successfully bring a cause of
action based in negligence, whether that be negligence per se, general
negligence, or motor vehicle negligence, a party must have evidence of duty,
breach of duty, causation and damages. Here, the evidence, if given proper
foundation, might demonstrate that there is no breach of duty. However, as
identified in Plaintiffs’ opposition, there is no foundation provided for the
crash data. There is no timely declaration attesting as to how the data was
procured or the accuracy of said data. It is merely provided without
explanation. Although Rosales later served and filed a declaration from an
expert providing some background into the issue, this was not filed with the
Court until November 17, 2022. All moving papers for a Motion for Summary
Judgment must be served and filed at least 75 calendar days prior to the
hearing on the motion in order to give Plaintiff the proper time to review and
reply to the information. (CCP § 473c(a)). This is mandatory, not
directive. The Court cannot consider an expert declaration submitted less than
30 days prior to the hearing. Therefore, Rosales has failed to provide adequate
foundation for his evidence. The only other piece of relevant evidence is Rosales’
own declaration, in which he states he was traveling at least 10 mph over the
speed limit at the time of the incident. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendant
Angel Rosales’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
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.