Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV05946, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV05946    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     November 30, 2023                           TRIAL DATE:  January 17, 2024

CASE:                         Alba Guillermina Carmona Suarez, et al.  v. Martha Traub, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV05946

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Martha Traub

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Alba Guillermina Carmona Suarez (“Suarez”) and her minor children, Andrew Vieyra ("Andrew") and Yaher Vieyra (“Yaher”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that on February 23, 2017, Suarez was driving her motor vehicle on the freeway when Defendant Martha Traub (“Traub”) and DOES 1-100 (collectively “Defendants”) negligently, unsafely, and dangerously collided with Suarez’s vehicle.  The collision allegedly resulted in Plaintiffs injuries.

            On February 21, 2019, Suarez initiated this action against Traub for negligence. Traub now seeks summary judgment on the basis that she was not the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident with Plaintiffs’ vehicle on February 23, 2017.

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Traub’s summary judgment motion. 

A.    Moving Party Arguments

Defendant Traub argues that there are no genuine issues of material fact because she was not involved in the accident. Thus, she contends that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (1) Defendant Traub did not owe a duty and did not breach any duty and (2) Plaintiffs’ injuries were not caused by Defendant Traub’s conduct.

B.     Opposing Party Arguments

Plaintiffs did not submit an opposition as of November 9, 2022, which is past the 28-day deadline.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary Judgment

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.) 

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia 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 or summary adjudication “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, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) 

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, 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.”  (Ibid.)¿ 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.) 

The court must “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party,” including “all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.”  (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037; Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 844-45.)  “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.)  “Put another way, have defendants conclusively negated a necessary element of the [plaintiff’s] case or demonstrated that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial?”  (Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 853, 860.) (Internal citation omitted.)  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”].)   

Negligence

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.  (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) 

IV.       DISCUSSION

            The Incident

            On February 23, 2017, Suarez was traveling westbound in her motor vehicle on the 10 freeway in San Dimas, California with her two children. (Undisputed Material Facts “UMF” 1). Plaintiffs’ Complaint stated that Defendant Traub was “operating a motor vehicle” when she “purportedly negligently, unsafely, and dangerously collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle.” (Complaint ¶¶7,13).

The only person named on title for the vehicle that crashed with Plaintiff’s vehicle on February 23, 2017, was, as of that date, Richard Jason Traub.  (UMF 2).  Martha Taub was not the driver of the vehicle that crashed with Plaintiffs’ vehicle on February 23, 2017.  (UMF 3).

            Analysis

            The issues in dispute converge on the elements of duty, breach, and causation.  “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; CACI No. 400.)  To prevail in a negligence action, the plaintiff must establish every essential element of her case by a preponderance of the evidence.  (Leslie G. v. Perry & Assocs. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482.) 

            Here, Defendant Traub argues summary judgment should be granted because Plaintiffs cannot establish duty, breach, and causation elements of their negligence claim. 

Duty

First, Defendant Traub argues that she does not owe a duty to use due care because she was not the driver of the vehicle, nor was she the registered owner. In fact, during Plaintiff Suarez’s deposition, when asked about the other driver getting into an ambulance, she stated that the driver “was an older man,” which shows that the driver was a male and not a woman. (Exhibit B, Suarez Depo. 49:6-11.) 

In sum, Defendant Traub shows she did not owe a duty because she was not the owner of the motor vehicle at any point, does not possess the motor vehicle, and was not the driver. Further, Plaintiff does not offer an Opposition or other evidence disputing Defendant Traub’s arguments. Thus, there was not a duty, and the element fails.

Breach

            Here, since there was no duty, there was likely no breach of that duty. Thus, this element also fails.

Causation

            Proof of causation requires a showing that it was the defendant's act or omission that was a substantial factor in bringing about injury. Padilla v. Rodas (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 742, 752, citing Saelzler, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 778. Here, Defendant Traub’s conduct did not cause the injuries because she was not the driver nor owned the vehicle. Thus, this element also fails.

            Traub meets her prima facie case to establish that no triable issue of fact exists here.  Plaintiffs, having filed no opposition, do not meet their burden to rebut that prima facie case.  Therefore, no triable issues of material fact exist.  Summary judgment is appropriate in favor of Defendant Traub.

VI.       CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   November 30, 2023                                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.