Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV17673, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17673 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff Karen Johana Lima Monzon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Hua Tong and Avis Rent a Car System, Inc. for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Nian Tong.
On October 18, 2021, Avis Rent A Car System LLC (erroneously sued as Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.) (“Avis”) filed an answer.
On May 26, 2022, Avis filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault and declaratory relief.
On August 11, 2022, the City filed an answer to the Cross-Complaint and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Avis, Hua Tong and Nian Tong for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. On September 8, 2022, Avis filed an answer.
On October 12, 2022, the Court denied Avis’s motion for summary judgment. The Court stated:
“Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when Hua collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. At the time of the incident, Hua was driving a rental car that she rented from AVIS. Under the Graves Amendment, a rental car company can only be held liable for damages caused by rental car drivers when a rental car company commits independent acts of negligence or criminal wrongdoing. AVIS argues that there is no evidence of any such independent act.
“AVIS first states that the subject rental car was rented to Nian, and only Nian. Under the subject agreement, Hua was not authorized to drive the vehicle. (UMF 13.) There is no indication that Nian was unfit to drive the subject vehicle at the time, which would be required to establish negligence in AVIS permitting Nian to rent the subject vehicle. AVIS also argues that there is no alleged defect of malfunction of the vehicle at the time of rental that caused the accident.
“The Court notes that in its moving papers, AVIS did not provide any actual evidence in support of the assertion that Nian had a valid driver’s license or that the car was in good condition— AVIS merely asserted that Plaintiff had not provided evidence of negating these points. This is insufficient to meet the burden required to justify a granting of summary judgment.
“Plaintiff argued that AVIS had not produced evidence indicating that Nian produced a driver’s license at the time of rental. (P’s UMF 2, 3, 4.) In response to multiple bouts of discovery, AVIS has produced the rental agreement and a payment stub reflecting Nian’s credit card number but did not produce a copy of the driver’s license or any proof that they actually reviewed Nian’s driver’s license prior to issuing the rental car.
“AVIS argued it does not have an obligation to ascertain a renter has a valid driver’s license, pursuant to VC §14604. Under the applicable statute, so long as the rental company has inspected the license and compared the signature or photograph to the person renting the vehicle, they have complied with the requisite requirements.
“In AVIS’s reply, AVIS provided a computer screen shot purporting to indicate that AVIS visually inspected Nian’s driver license. The screen shot contains information from Nian’s driver’s license. Under VC §14604, a rental car agency must comply with VC §14609, as well. Under VC §14609, every person renting a motor vehicle must keep a record of the expiration date of the driver’s license. AVIS did not make a record of Nian’s expiration date, meaning that AVIS did not comply with statute. There may be a basis for negligence, which would bypass the Graves Amendment, so long as the agreement may have allowed for Hua to drive the vehicle.
On February 23, 2023, the Court dismissed Hua Tong and Nian Tong with prejudice at the oral request of Plaintiff’s counsel. On July 18, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissals of Hua Tong and Nian Tong.
On March 27, 2023, Avis filed a renewed motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication to be heard on June 15, 2023. On June 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On June 9, 2023, Avis filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to July 20, 2023.
Trial is currently set for January 30, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Avis requests that the Court grant the motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion.
| A. Summary judgment “‘[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 949, 945, quoting Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar).) “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) When the moving party is a defendant, it must show that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853.) “The defendant has shown that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Id. at p. 854.) The defendant must “present evidence, and not simply point out that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Ibid.) Thus, “the defendant must ‘support[ ]’ the ‘motion’ with evidence including ‘affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice’ must or may ‘be taken.’ [Citation.] The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendant may also 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.” (Id. at p. 855, original emphasis.) “Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations . . . shall set forth admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (d).) “Matters which would be excluded under the rules of evidence if proffered by a witness in a trial as hearsay, conclusions or impermissible opinions, must be disregarded in supporting affidavits.” (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.) In addition, a party moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must support the motion with “a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.” (Parkview Villas Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2006) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209 (Parkview Villas), quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1) [motion for summary judgment]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2) [motion for summary adjudication “shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment”].) The party opposing the motion must file with the opposition papers “a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating whether the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts that the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).) If either party fails to comply with the applicable separate statement requirement, that failure may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground to decide the motion adversely to the offending party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b)(1), (3).) In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn from it, and must view such evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.) “A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2).) “(a) In general.--An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if-- “(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and “(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner). “(b) Financial responsibility laws.--Nothing in this section supersedes the law of any State or political subdivision thereof-- “(1) imposing financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle; or “(2) imposing liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law.
|
|
Sustained: 2, 4 Overruled: 1, 3 |
A. Avis’s undisputed facts
Avis is in the business of car rental. (UMF 1.) PV Holding Corp. is the nominee titleholder for the fleet of vehicles rented to the general public under rental agreements through Avis. (UMF 2.) PV Holding Corp. is the nominee titleholder of the subject vehicle. (UMF 3.)
Under Avis’s policies and procedures, Avis’s rental car affiliates require their customers to present a facially valid driver’s license prior to renting a vehicle. (UMF 4.) The renter’s driver’s license information is then simultaneously recorded into the computer system along with the registration number of the rental vehicle, the name and address of the renter, and the jurisdiction that issued the renter’s driver’s license. (UMF 5.) Also prior to rental, the rental car affiliates require confirmation of the validity of the license in one of two ways: (1) the renter’s signature is compared to the signature on the presented driver’s license; or (2) the renter’s appearance is compared to the photograph on the presented driver’s license. [1] (UMF 6.) In addition, prior to rental, the rental car affiliates are required to confirm that the renter does not appear impaired or otherwise unfit to drive. (UMF 7.)
The rental car affiliates require all vehicles to be properly maintained. (UMF 8.)
On May 13, 2019, Nian Tong rented the subject vehicle from Avis in the normal course and scope of Avis’s business as a rental car company. (UMF 9.)
As of May 13, 2019, maintenance records reflects that the subject vehicle had received all properly scheduled maintenance and inspections. (UMF 10.)
The closed Rental Agreement screen (hereinafter “806 Screen”) demonstrates that Nian Tong presented Massachusetts driver’s license S18951167, which was issued on December 13, 2018, and expired on July 9, 2019, and therefore was active on the date of rental.[2] (UMF 11.)
Avis policy requires that all renters be given a copy of the rental Terms and Conditions at the completion of the rental. (UMF 12.) Paragraph Five of the rental Terms and Conditions states in relevant part: “Except where otherwise specifically authorized by applicable law, only you, your spouse or domestic partner . . . may drive the car, but only with your prior permission.” (UMF 13.)
Avis did not authorize any additional drivers to operate the rental vehicle. (UMF 16.)
On May 14, 2019, Hua Tong was operating the rental vehicle when she was involved in an automobile accident with Plaintiff. (UMF 18.)
Nian Tong and Hua Tong have since left the United States and returned to China. (UMF 19.) Neither Nian Tong nor Hong Tong are believed to have returned to the United States. (UMF 20.) Nian Tong and Hong Tong are not and have never been employees or agents of Avis or any of its affiliates or related companies. (UMF 21.)
B. Avis’s arguments
Avis argues it cannot be liable to Plaintiff because (1) it did not own the vehicle that collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle, (2) Avis did not authorize Hua Tong to drive the vehicle, (3) Avis’s affiliate inspected Nian’s Tong’s valid driver’s license before renting the vehicle, (4) there is no evidence that the vehicle was negligently maintained, and (5) there is no evidence that Nian Tong or Hong Tong was an agent or employee of Avis.
Avis asserts it has presented new evidence that Nian Tong signed a rental agreement receipt stating that no additional drivers were allowed to operate the rental vehicle without Avis’s prior written consent.
D. Plaintiff’s argument
Plaintiff challenges the admissibility of a key piece of evidence supporting Avis’s motion for summary judgment: Exhibit E to the Declaration of Jeanne Motosko. Exhibit E is a photograph of a document being held in front of a camera. Motosko describes Exhibit E as “a copy of the computer-generated Rental Agreement Receipt for the subject vehicle rented to Nian Tong on May 13, 2019 signed by Nian Tong.” Motosko states: “Two to three lines above Renter’s signature, the rental receipt states, “No additional drivers allowed without prior written consent.” (Motosko Dec. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff objects to Exhibit E based on hearsay and lack of personal knowledge, foundation and authentication.
Avis argues Jeanne Motosko “authenticated [Exhibit E] as . . . the regional risk manager of Avis Rental Car System, LLC” and that having this knowledge falls within the scope of her job duties. But Avis’s moving papers assert that Exhibit E was produced by Plaintiff, which Plaintiff denies. Motosko’s declaration does not explain how Motosko obtained this photograph of a document or can authenticate it as a “copy of the computer-generated Rental Agreement.”
The Court concludes that Exhibit E is inadmissible and sustains Plaintiff’s objection to it.
Without Exhibit E, Avis lacks admissible evidence showing that Nian Tong agreed to (or knew about) Avis’s requirement that only authorized drivers operate the rental vehicle. The lack of evidence on this point prevents Avis from carrying its initial burden on summary judgment. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Avis Rent a Car’s renewed motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
[1] Plaintiff’s objection to undisputed facts 4, 5 and 6 does not address the facts asserted but instead argues Avis did not comply with Vehicle Code requirements.
[2] Plaintiff’s objection to undisputed fact 11 does not address the fact asserted.