Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV13165, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV13165    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff SSI Refrigerated Express, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            SSI alleges a single cause of action for negligence based on Plaintiff being provided hydraulic oil as opposed to what was ordered, i.e., motor oil, which resulted in damage to Plaintiff’s semi fleet. The 55 gallon drum of hydraulic oil was mislabeled on the outer top portion of the barrel as motor oil. The drum was then sold to Plaintiff, who used it on a number of his vehicles. (Complaint, ¶10.) Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant had a duty to inspect said barrel of oil to make certain, verify and confirm that the contents were correct and that the barrel's labeling was accurate. Since the barrel was mislabeled, defendant breached said duty when the defendant supplied the incorrect product to plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶11.) Chevron was added to the Complaint as Doe 4.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Chevron’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

“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.)  “[A] party may not defeat summary judgment by means of declarations or affidavits which contradict that party’s deposition testimony or sworn discovery responses.”  (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 459; see also D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 25.) A plaintiff cannot “rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 828.)  Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show that there is a triable issue as to any material fact.  (Id. at 849.)  With respect to a motion for summary judgment “the moving party’s affidavits are strictly construed while those of the opposing party are liberally construed.”  (Walker v. Blue Cross of California (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 985, 990.) With respect to a motion for summary judgment “if it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.”  (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 313.) “A defendant . . . 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 causes of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)  By contradicting prior discovery responses, a party cannot create a triable issue of material fact.  (Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1087-1090.)  The trial court “give[s] great weight to admissions made in discovery and disregard[s] contradictory and self-serving affidavits of the party.”  (Id. at 1087.)  “Summary adjudication motions are procedurally identical to summary judgment motions.”  (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 859.)  “A party may not avoid summary judgment based on mere speculation and conjecture . . . but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.”  (Compton v. City of Santee (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 591, 595-596.)

In the context of a summary judgment motion “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”  (Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 252.)  “If the defendant in a run-of-the-mill civil case moves for summary judgment . . . based on the lack of proof of a material fact, the judge must ask himself [or herself] not whether he [or she] thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.”  (Id.)  “[A] party may present a motion for summary adjudication challenging a separate and distinct wrongful act even though combined with other wrongful acts alleged in the same cause of action.”  (Edward Fineman Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1118.)  A triable issue of material fact is found “if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 433.)

Negligence

            In essence, this is a no-evidence motion for summary judgment based upon allegedly factually devoid discovery responses. Chevron argues that Plaintiff has no evidence that Chevron mislabeled the drum as motor oil and admitted in discovery that Chevron complied with its alleged duty by placing an accurate “gear oil” label on the drum. Chevron cites to Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories, a copy of photos of the label on the Drum at issue, and a copy of a report prepared by Michael Stapleford of JCB Forensic Engineering Inc., hired by Plaintiffs, dated July 20, 2020 and produced to Chevron by Plaintiffs in their Verified Responses to Defendant Chevron Corporation’s Request for Production of Documents. (Chevron’s UMF Nos. 3, 5, Ananian Decl., ¶¶2, 4-5, Exhs. A, C-D.)

First, the Court notes that Chevron has not pointed out the relevant portions of these documents or explained their relevance. Upon review, the Court does not find the documents support Chevron’s contention that it complied with its duty by placing an accurate “gear oil” label on the drum, since there was also an incorrect label over it. The documents do not show that Chevron had nothing to do with the placement of the second label, nor does it otherwise explain the second label. Chevron only specifically points to Plaintiff’s response to interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 in support of its contention that Plaintiff has no evidence. The responses are identical and state: “Plaintiff is alleging that Chevron is within the chain of custody of the labels and/or oil. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Chevron Corporation negligently failed to properly vet, oversee and/or supervise their ‘preferred vendors’ in which they delegated, permitted, and/or allowed access to Chevron’s product labels – with no oversight. Further, the labeling and product itself within the drum was Chevron’s. Discovery is ongoing and continuous, and Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response upon discovery of additional facts and/or evidence pertinent to this request.” (Ananian Decl., ¶2, Exh. A.) This does not show that Plaintiff has no evidence. The interrogatory does not ask for evidence, but every fact in support of Plaintiff’s contentions. Further, Chevron does not provide Plaintiff’s responses to other discovery requests such as requests for production of documents to show that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence. Moreover, the responses are stale as they were provided in August 2023. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Chevron has not met its initial burden.

The Court therefore DENIES the motion for summary judgment.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 20th day of March 2024