Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV26070, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

On August 11, 2022, Shafter Robin Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Jose Candido Henriquez as an individual and a corporation (collectively “Defendants”) for injuries arising from an August 29, 2020 motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff alleges negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment.

On April 10, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”). Plaintiff failed to respond to the RFAs. Subsequently, Defendants filed a Motion to Deem Matters Admitted. Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion.

On July 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney and became self-represented.

On August 16, 2023, the Court ordered that Defendants’ RFAs be deemed admitted.

On September 19, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment because they argue that the matters deemed admitted within the RFAs are dispositive of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, they contend they are now entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Plaintiff was served by mail but did not file an opposition.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision which occurred on August 29, 2020, in Los Angeles, California (“The Incident”). (Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” No. 2.) As admitted through order of this Court, Defendants did not cause The Incident and Defendants’ acts and omissions were not a substantial factor in causing The Incident. (UMF No. 3-5.) Therefore, Defendants were not negligent. (UMF No. 6.) Moreover, Defendants’ alleged negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. (UMF No. 7.) Plaintiff was not injured as a result of The Incident. (UMF No. 8.) Plaintiff did not incur any damages as a result of the Incident. (UMF No. 9.) Lastly, Defendants did not violate Vehicle Code sections 21703 and 22350 on the date of the Incident. (UMF No. 10.)

According to Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c)(a): “A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 437(c)(a).)

A defendant seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing a cause of action has no merit. A party cannot prevail on a cause of action if the party seeking summary judgment can show that one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be established. (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 437(c)(o); A-H Plating. Inc. v. American National Fire Ins. Co. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 427, 433-434.) Absent any material facts to support the elements of the cause of action, summary judgment shall be granted. (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 437(c).)

Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages. (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

Negligence Per Se allows the failure to exercise due care to be presumed if a party violates a statutes or ordinance. (Cal. Evid. Code § 669.)

“It is generally recognized that one who places or entrusts his or her motor vehicle in the hands of one whom he or she knows, or from the circumstances is charged with knowing, is incompetent or unfit to drive, may be held liable for an injury inflicted by the use made thereof by that driver, provided the plaintiff can establish that the injury complained of was proximately caused by the driver’s disqualification, incompetency, inexperience or recklessness . . .” (Flores v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1063.)

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff cannot establish any element to the causes of action alleged against Defendants. Notably, Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

For a negligence cause of action to prevail all elements need to be established. Here, the Court deemed admitted the fact that Defendants were not negligent. (UMF Nos. 6-8; Alexandria K. Hobson’s Declaration, ¶¶3-5; Exhibit B, C, and D; Requests for Admissions Nos. 4-6.) Thus, this cause of action fails.

A negligence per se cause of action requires the violation of a statute or an ordinance. Here, the Court deemed admitted the fact that Defendants did not violate the Vehicle Code sections 21703 and 22350 on the date of the Incident. (UMF No. 10; Alexandria K. Hobson’s Declaration, ¶¶3-7; Exhibit B, C, and D; Requests for Admissions No. 10.) Thus, this cause of action fails.

Similarly, the negligent entrustment cause of action also fails because there was a lack of proximate cause. Here, the Court deemed admitted the fact that Defendants did not cause The Incident and Defendants’ acts and omissions were not a substantial factor in causing The Incident. (UMF No. 3-5; Alexandria K. Hobson’s Declaration, ¶¶3-5; Exhibit B, C, and D.) Thus, this cause of action fails.

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