Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV10310, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10310    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On March 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present case, alleging that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 19, 2019, at the intersection of Rinaldi Street and Blucher Avenue in Los Angeles, California, where Defendant Larry Simons collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing Plaintiff to sustain injuries.

On March 1, 2023, Defendant Larry Simons propounded Request for Admissions, Set Two to Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to provide any response, and Defendant moved for an order deeming the matters in the Request for Admissions as admitted.

On January 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion and ordered the following matters deemed admitted:

• Plaintiff caused the accident.
• Plaintiff was negligent at the time of the accident.
• Plaintiff’s negligence caused the accident.
• Plaintiff made an unsafe left turn at the time of the accident, in violation of Vehicle Code section 21802.
• Plaintiff failed to stop before entering the intersection at the time of the accident, in violation of Vehicle Code section 22450.
• Plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident.
• Plaintiff was 100% at fault for the accident.
• Simons was not negligent at the time of the accident.
• Simons was driving his vehicle at a safe speed at the time of the accident.
• Simons was 0% at fault for the accident.

Legal Standard

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, 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.) 

Under California law, the elements of a negligence cause of action 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.)

Discussion

On January 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Requests for Admissions (RFA) as admissions. Specifically, the Court found the following facts to be admitted:

1.  Plaintiff caused the accident.

2.  Plaintiff was negligent at the time of the accident.

3.  Plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident.

4.  Plaintiff was 100% at fault for the accident.

5.  Defendant Simons was not negligent at the time of the accident.

6.  Defendant Simons was driving at a safe speed at the time of the accident.

By admitting these facts, Defendant has successfully negated key elements of Plaintiff’s negligence claim, particularly breach and causation. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

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’s 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