Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV01540, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV01540, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01540 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT¿AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Hearing Date: 11/12/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV01540 JENNY ITURRIOS, et al. vs EAN HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Sabrina Hicks

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: GRANTED

Background

This action arises from an alleged multi-vehicle accident that occurred on June 28, 2020, on Interstate 405 near Centinela Avenue in Los Angeles County, California, involving Plaintiffs Jenny Iturrios and Mayra Perez, Rashida Lenard (Plaintiff in related case 22STCV04046), and Defendant Sabrina Nicole Hicks. Prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs Jenny Iturrios and Mayra Perez entered into a settlement agreement with Defendant’s insurer, GEICO, and Rashida Lenard in the related action, resolving all claims against Defendant arising from the incident.

Despite this settlement agreement, Plaintiffs filed this complaint asserting two causes of action: negligence and negligence per se. Defendant now moves for summary judgment based on the settlement agreement, and Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

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.)

“[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).)¿If the moving party fails to carry its burden, the inquiry is over, and the motion must be denied. (See Id.; see also Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)¿Even if the moving party does carry its burden, the non-moving party will still defeat the motion by presenting evidence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849-50.)

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.)¿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”].)

Discussion

On June 28, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendant were involved in a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 405 near Centinela Avenue in Los Angeles County. At the time of the accident, Defendant was covered by an automobile liability insurance policy with GEICO, which provided bodily injury policy limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident. (Def. Ex. B, C, D.)

On March 25, 2021, Defense Counsel sent a letter to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Sam Ryan Heidari, Esq. ("Mr. Heidari"), and to counsel for Mr. Lenard, Stephen P. Grayson, Esq. ("Mr. Grayson"), offering the bodily injury policy limit to Plaintiffs and Mr. Lenard as a global settlement. (Def. Ex. E.) On August 9, 2021, Defense Counsel sent a second letter reiterating the $60,000 policy limit offer to Plaintiffs and Mr. Lenard. (Def. Ex. F.)

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed an apportionment of the bodily injury policy limit among the three claimants: Plaintiffs and Mr. Lenard. (Ex. G.) That same day, Mr. Grayson agreed to the proposed apportionment. (Ex. G.) On August 11, 2021, Defense Counsel confirmed the Settlement Agreement, reflecting GEICO's policy limit offer and the apportionment agreed to by Plaintiffs and Mr. Lenard. (Ex. G.) Defense Counsel then prepared Settlement Agreements for Plaintiffs based on the agreed apportionment of the policy limits. (Ex. H, I.) On December 15, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiff Mayra Perez signed the Settlement Agreement. (Ex. I.)

A settlement agreement is a contract thus general contract principles apply. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1988) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) The essential elements of a contract are: (1) parties capable of contracting; (2) the parties' mutual consent; (3) a lawful purpose; and (4) consideration. (Civ. Code § 1550; Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1230.) Here, Defendant has presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden. First, each party was represented by counsel, demonstrating that the parties were capable of contracting. Second, mutual consent was established through email exchanges, in which both counsel for Lenard and Defendant agreed to the apportionment of Defendant’s policy limit proposed by Plaintiff’s attorney. Third, consideration is present as Defendant tendered its policy limit in exchange for a full release related to the incident. Fourth, this is a standard auto accident settlement, and there is no evidence of any unlawful purpose.

The Court finds that Defendant has met its initial burden of demonstrating a valid settlement agreement, which serves as a complete defense to Plaintiff’s claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiff did not file an opposition and therefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.