Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21STCV25336, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25336    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-25-24

Case # 21STCV25336

Trial Date: 2-26-24

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District and Luis Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed

RELIEF REQUESTED

Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Evelyn Gallegos, through her Guardian ad Litem Karen Gallegos, (Plaintiff) alleges in her Second Amended Complaint, filed on September 20, 2022, that on March 5, 2020, a group of students were bullying her and pushed her into a concrete lunch table, causing her to lose consciousness. (SAC, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that this incident occurred because of the negligence of Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District and Luis Lopez (Defendants).

On May 26, 2023, Defendant LAUSD served written discovery on Plaintiff, including LAUSD’s Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff’s responses were due by June 27, 2023, but because Plaintiff never responded, LAUSD filed a Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted on August 22, 2023. On September 18, 2023, the motion was granted. Because the motion was granted, LAUSD’s Requests for Admission were deemed admitted and the truth of all matters specified therein are established for all purposes in this action. The responses that were deemed admitted include the following:

            REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Admit that no LAUSD employee caused the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:

Admit that YOU did not suffer any injuries as a result of the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:

Admit that the INCIDENT was caused by YOUR own negligence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:

Admit that only YOUR negligence is responsible for the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:

Admit that YOU did not suffer any damages as a result of the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:

Admit that LAUSD is not at fault for the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:

Admit that Luis Lopez is not at fault for the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:

Admit that no act by Luis Lopez was the proximate cause of YOUR alleged injuries.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:

Admit that YOU were not negligently supervised at the time of the INCIDENT.

(RJN, Ex. A.)

As a result of the Requests for Admissions being admitted, Plaintiff has deemed to admitted that (1) neither LAUSD or LOPEZ was negligent in supervising him at the time of the incident, (2) no LAUSD employee caused the incident, (3) the subject incident was caused by her own negligence, and (4) she is not damaged as a result of the alleged incident described in Plaintiff’s SAC. (UMF 8.) It is therefore established that (1) LAUSD and its employees, including LOPEZ, did not cause the incident and/or injuries alleged in Plaintiff’s SAC, and (2) Plaintiff was not damaged as a result of the incident alleged in the SAC. (UMF 9.)

Defendants have moved for summary judgment based on these established facts. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

RULING: Granted.

Requests for Judicial Notice: Granted.

The court takes judicial notice of the requests for admission that were deemed admitted.

Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that they could not have been negligent based on the Admissions that have been deemed admitted.

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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 pleadings frame the issues for motions, “since it is those allegations to which the motion must respond. (Citation.)” (Scolinos v. Kolts (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 635, 640-641; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382-383; Jordan-Lyon Prods., LTD. v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1472.) “On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) “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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inference that may be drawn form that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; see also CCP § 437c(c).) “An issue of fact can only be created by a conflict in the evidence.  It is not created by speculation, conjecture, imagination or guesswork.” (Lyons v. Security Pacific National Bank (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1041 (citation omitted).)

The Court may take judicial notice of matters that cannot be reasonably controverted, including “admissions and concessions.” (Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549.) The Court may take judicial notice of a party’s admissions, even if they negate express allegations of the pleading. (See Id.) The Court may also take judicial notice of admissions that “contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court.” (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605.) Moreover, if a party does not move the trial court to allow for withdrawal or amendment of an admission, the admission is conclusively established against that party in the action. (See Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1489.)

The elements for a negligence cause of action are (1) that the defendant was negligent; (2) that the plaintiff was harmed; and (3) that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. (See CACI 400.)

“‘[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.’ (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)” (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 959, 971.)

In this case, Plaintiff’s admissions that were deemed admitted establish that Defendants were not negligent and that Plaintiff was not harmed or damaged as a result of the incident. The admissions also establish that Defendants were not negligent in their supervision at the time of the incident and that no LAUSD employee caused the incident.

Based on the foregoing, no triable issue of material fact exists concerning Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

Moving party to give notice.