Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV02168, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02168    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: O

  Case Name:  O’Brien v. Midway Rent a Car, Inc, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Midway Rent a Car, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Torin O’Brien

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant Midway Rent a Car, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff Torin O’Brien’s Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant met their burden to provide material facts to negate multiple elements of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and to establish an affirmative defense. Plaintiff did not meet their burden to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense.

            Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.” (Code of Civil Procedure §437c(o)(2).) A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.) Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.” (Id.) If unable to prove the existence of a triable issue of material fact, summary judgment or summary adjudication in favor of the defendant is proper. (Id.)

I.      Defendant Meets Burden to Negate Multiple Elements of Plaintiffs Causes of Action

            “The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are ‘(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.’” (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.)

            “A rental car company may be held liable for negligently entrusting one of its cars to a customer . . . . [D]efendant's conduct is to be measured by what an ordinarily prudent person would do in similar circumstances. Vehicle Code section 14608 prohibits a rental car agency from renting to unlicensed drivers. A rental car agency may therefore be liable for negligently entrusting a car to an unlicensed driver. [citation] Other jurisdictions have sensibly recognized a rental car agency may be liable for negligently entrusting a car to a customer known to the agency to be intoxicated at the time of the rental.” (Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 703, 709.) “Liability for negligent entrustment is determined by applying general principles of negligence.”  (Allen v. Toledo (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 415, 421.)

            The Graves Amendment bars motor vehicle and general negligence claims against Rental Car companies when the following conditions are met:

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).

            (49 U.S.C.A. § 30106.)

            “[A] rental car agency complies with [Vehicle Code] section 14608 by visually examining the license and verifying either the signature on the license or the photograph (Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 1, 10.) California Vehicle Code § 14608 states:

(a) A person shall not rent a motor vehicle to another person unless both of the following requirements have been met:

(1) The person to whom the vehicle is rented is licensed under this code or is a nonresident who is licensed under the laws of the state or country of his or her residence.

(2) The person renting to another person has inspected the driver's license of the person to whom the vehicle is to be rented and compared either the signature thereon with that of the person to whom the vehicle is to be rented or the photograph thereon with the person to whom the vehicle is to be rented.

       (Veh. Code, § 14608.)

            Defendant Midway Rent a Car, Inc. (“MRC”) establishes that it is in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and the vehicle at issue, the 2022 Ford Mustang EcoBoost (the “Vehicle”), was owned by Midway HFCA LLC and leased to MRC. (SSUF, ¶¶ 1, 2; Kim Decl., ¶¶ 3–5, Ex A; LoCascio Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. H, p. 6:1–10.) MRC establishes that Co-Defendant Eddie Loza (“Loza”) was not employed by MRC and was never involved in a joint venture with MRC. (SSUF, ¶¶ 3, 7, 12; Kim Decl., ¶ 4; Locascio Decl., ¶ 5, Ec. H, p. 5:1–28.) MRC establishes that there is no evidence that the Vehicle was negligently maintained or repaired, or that the mechanical condition of the vehicle contributed to the vehicle collision giving rise to the lawsuit. (SSUF, ¶¶ 9, 14, 15; LoCascio Decl., ¶¶ 2–8 Ex E–K; Kim Decl., ¶ 5.) MRC establishes that Loza satisfied MRC’s rental criteria by presenting a facially valid California’s Driver’s license at the time the Vehicle was rented; Loza’s Driver’s License picture matched Loza’s appearance at time of the rental, and Loza did not appear to be unfit to drive. (Johnson Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. D.)

            MRC provides declarations, evidence, and material facts to negate Plaintiff Torin O’Brien (“O’Brien’s”) claim elements of Duty and Breach. Furthermore, MRC’s provides material facts to show that the Graves Amendment bars any tort liability contributed to MRC in this action. MRC has met their burden to provide material facts to dispute one or more elements and provide a complete defense as to O’Brien’s Complaint, and thus the burden moves to O’Brien to provide disputed material facts.

II.   Plaintiff fails to Meet Burden to Provide Disputed Material Facts

O’Brien does not dispute any material facts within MRC’s SSUF. (See SSUF, ¶¶ 1–17.) O’Brien provides no declarations, evidence, material facts or applicable authority to dispute that MRC did not negligently entrust the Vehicle to Loza, or that MRC did not negligently maintain the vehicle. Furthermore, O’Brien does not dispute that MRC is in the business of leasing cars, MRC leased the car to Loza, and MRC followed the proper procedures under Veh. Code, § 14608 in renting the Vehicle to Loza. Thus, O’Brien does not meet their burden to show a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or the Graves Amendment preemption defense.

 MRC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED