Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV13165, Date: 2025-06-04 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.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Jay Mehta, Inc. dba JM Oil, Chevron Corporation, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Southern Counties Lubricants, LLC, Utility Trailer Sales of Southern California and Universal Exchange, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”)

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed the complaint (“Complaint”) alleging a single cause of action for negligence. The Complaint alleges that Defendants sold Plaintiff hydraulic oil instead of the motor oil that was ordered, resulting in damage to Plaintiff’s fleet of semi-trucks.

On March 3, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”). On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On May 23, 2025, Defendants filed a reply (the “Reply”).

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), the Court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States”.

Pursuant to Defendants’ request, the Court takes judicial notice of this Court’s February 25, 2025 Order. (Compendium of Exhibits, Ex. 15.)

An opposition to a motion for summary judgment “shall be served and filed not less than 20 days preceding” the date of hearing. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 437c, subd. (b)(2).) Further, “[t]he opposition papers shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.” (CCP, § 437c, subd. (b)(3).)

Thus, any opposition to this Motion was required to be served and filed by May 15, 2025. Plaintiff did not file the Opposition until May 21, 2025. Additionally, the proof of service indicates that the Opposition was not served in compliance with CCP section 1005, subdivision (b). Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement as required. This constitutes sufficient grounds to grant the Motion. The Court will, nonetheless, proceed to consider the Motion on its merits.

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact for trial or that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (CCP, § 437c, subd. (c).)

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that no triable issue of material fact exists. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) To meet this burden, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.”¿(Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.)¿It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence.¿(Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.)¿The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.”¿(Id.)¿The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.¿(Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“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.” (CCP § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.”¿(Ibid.)¿“If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”¿(Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence.¿While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues.¿[Citation.]¿Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law.¿ If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.”¿(Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839.)¿Further, “the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true.¿[Citation.]¿Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court’s evaluation of credibility. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 840; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)

To establish a negligence claim, plaintiffs must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 618.)

Causation is established by showing that a defendant’s breach of duty was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff’s injury, and there is no legal rule relieving defendant from liability. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.) Defendant’s negligence is the actual cause, or cause in fact, of plaintiff’s injury if it is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. (Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1052.) “In other words, [the] plaintiff must show some substantial link or nexus between omission and injury.” (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 778.)¿¿

“[I]f the defendant has shown, through the evidence adduced in the case, that the plaintiff cannot reasonably expect to establish a prima facie case of causation, and that a nonsuit in the defendant's favor would be inevitable, then ‘the trial court was well justified in awarding summary judgment to avoid a useless trial.’ [Citation.]” (Padilla v. Rodas (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 742, 752.)

Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot establish the causation elements of its negligence claim. Defendants argue that there is no evidence establishing in which trucks the oil from the mislabeled oil drum was used. [UMF Nos. 6-8.] Defendants also argue that there is no evidence establishing that the trucks which received the mislabeled oil subsequently broke down. [UMF Nos. 5-9.] Further, Defendants argue that, per this Court’s order imposing evidentiary sanctions, Plaintiff is precluded from presenting any evidence regarding the mechanical causes of its truck breakdowns or whether oil from the mislabeled drum contributed to those breakdowns. (Mot., p. 11:12-15; Ex. 15.) Thus, Defendants have shown that there is no evidence that oil from the mislabeled drum was used in Plaintiff’s trucks or caused subsequent damage.

Defendants have met their burden to show that no triable issue of material fact exists as to the causation element of Plaintiff’s negligence claim. The burden thus shifts to Plaintiff to establish that a triable issue of one or more material facts does exist.

Plaintiff has not met this burden. Plaintiff’s Opposition is entirely devoid of any legal authority or citations to evidence. Plaintiff does not include a separate statement and thus the undisputed material facts asserted by Defendants remain undisputed. The Court notes that while Plaintiff references its responses to Defendants’ interrogatories (see Opp., pp. 8-10), pursuant to the Court’s evidentiary sanctions imposed on February 25, 2025, Plaintiff cannot present witness testimony regarding the identification or number of its trucks that broke down after being serviced with oil from the drum, the mechanical reasons that one or more its trucks broke down or whether oil from the drum caused any of its trucks to breakdown and become unavailable for service. (2/25/2025 Minute Order.)

Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden showing the nonexistence of a triable issue of fact concerning whether the oil from the mislabeled drum caused damage to any of Plaintiff’s trucks, and that Plaintiff cannot meet its burden demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact that the oil caused the alleged damage.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court