Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV07147, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07147    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: 12/2/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV07147 KENIA GABRIELA ANDRADE, et al. vs BRANDY WEISS, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: GRANTED

Background

On February 28, 2022, Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff Kenia Andrade, filed a complaint against Defendants Brandy Weiss, Mitre Corporation, Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC in connection with a two-vehicle collision that occurred on March 3, 2020. Brandy Weiss was the driver allegedly responsible for the accident. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for negligence against all Defendants, including Avis Budget Group, Inc. and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC ("Avis Defendants"). The Avis Defendants move for summary judgment against Kenia Andrade, arguing that they are not Weiss's employer, did not negligently entrust the vehicle to Weiss, and are shielded by the Graves Amendment. Plaintiff 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

Avis Defendants have shifted their initial burden. Defendant Brandy Weiss was driving a 2019 Hyundai Accent during the two-vehicle accident that occurred on March 3, 2020. Avis Defendants did not own the 2019 Hyundai Accent that Weiss was driving at the time of the accident. (Vehicle Registration, Exh. B, ¶ 3, 3:7-9.) Furthermore, Weiss was not an employee of either of the Avis Defendants at the time of the accident; she was employed by Defendant Mitre Corporation. (Weiss Declaration, ¶ 3, 2:1-3.)

Plaintiff’s discovery responses are factually devoid to support her contention that either Avis Budget Group, Inc. or Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC negligently entrusted the 2019 Hyundai Accent to Weiss. (Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, nos. 24-26, pgs. 16-17, Exh. G; Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, no. 27, pgs. 13-14, Exh. I; Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, nos. 4-6, pgs. 4-7, Exh. K; Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, no. 5, pg. 6, Exh. M.)

The Graves Amendment provides that an owner of a motor vehicle engaged in the business of renting or leasing vehicles is not liable for harm arising from the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the rental or lease period, provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing by the owner. (49 U.S.C. § 30106(a).) The statute shields owners of leased vehicles from vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of the lessee’s drivers. (Vargas v. FMI, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 638, 642.)

Defendants are engaged in the car rental business. (Exhs. D, E.) Moreover, Plaintiff has no evidence of negligence or wrongdoing on the part of Avis Defendants. (Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, nos. 27-29, pgs. 17-18, Exh. G; Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, no. 28, pgs. 14-15, Exh. I; Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, nos. 6-8, pgs. 6-9, Exh. K; Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, no. 6, pgs. 6-7, Exh. M.)

Defendants’ affirmative evidence, coupled with Plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses, demonstrates that Defendants are not Weiss’s employer, did not negligently entrust the vehicle to Weiss, and are shielded by the Graves Amendment. Defendants have shifted the burden to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff did not file an opposition and, therefore, failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Kenia Andrade 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.