Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV37756, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

The complaint in this action arises from an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 4, 2018. On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff Isaac Cortez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for personal injuries—car accident against Defendants Desiree Hindman, Sevak Dersarkissian, Selina Dersarkissian, Lyft, Inc., and Does 1 through 20.

Plaintiff alleges that he was a passenger in a Black 2013 Scion on October 4, 2018, and he was injured while riding in the motor vehicle. (Complaint, ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff alleges that the negligent conduct of Defendants was the cause of his injuries. (Id., ¶¶ 14-16.)

On November 17, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Dersarkissian’s motion for summary judgment.

On November 20, 2023, Defendant Lyft filed the instant motion for summary judgment. The motion is unopposed.

The Court GRANTS Lyft’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1 through 12 pursuant to California Evidence Code, Section 452.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(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 function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67.)

“As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) Once the defendant has met its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “may . . . present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.” (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 889-90.)

To succeed in a negligence action, a plaintiff must show the following: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty; (2) the defendant breached the duty; and (3) the breach proximately or legally caused the plaintiff’s damages or injuries. (Thomas v. Stenberg (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 654, 662.)

The causation element of negligence is met when a plaintiff establishes that: (1) the defendant’s breach of duty was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm; and (2) there is no rule of law relieving the defendant of liability. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 481.) A plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 774.) Evidence of causation must be substantial and cannot be mere speculation or conjecture. (Showalter v. Western Pac. R. Co. (1940) 16 Cal.2d 460, 471.) The substantial factor standard generally produces the same results as does the but for rule of causation which states that a defendant’s conduct is a cause of the injury if the injury would not have occurred but for that conduct. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 969.)

Defendant argues that Lyft has no liability here because the Court granted Dersarkissian’s, Plaintiff’s Lyft driver, motion for summary judgment, thereby finding no triable issue as to Dersarkissian’s negligence. As Lyft’s liability is derivative of Dersarkissian’s, Lyft has no liability. The Court agrees as a matter of law.

Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion and therefore has not presented any evidence showing that there is a triable issue of material fact as to causation. The Court therefore finds that Defendant has met his burden by showing that Plaintiff’s negligence claim cannot be established. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the Motion is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Further, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss the entire action, though the Court rejected it.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court