Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV11213, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 23STCV11213 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff Sara Melgar filed this action against Defendants Albert Thomas (“Thomas”), US Floor Designs Inc. (“Designs”), and Does 1-60 for negligence and negligence per se.
On August 15, 2023, Thomas filed an answer. On February 21, 2024, Thomas filed a first amended answer which included an affirmative defense based on settlement.
On August 21, 2023, Designs filed an answer. On December 6, 2023, the Court dismissed Designs without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 28, 2024, Thomas filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. The motion was set for hearing on November 7, 2024. On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 1, 2024, Thomas filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to January 7, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 17, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Thomas asks the Court to grant summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Summary judgment and summary adjudication
“‘[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 ruling on the motion, the court must consider all the evidence and all 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.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint alleges that on or about May 21, 2021, on Hollywood Boulevard near Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Los Angeles, Thomas negligently drove his vehicle into the rear of Plaintiff’s stopped vehicle, injuring Plaintiff.
B. Thomas’s contentions
Thomas has presented evidence that he and Plaintiff entered into a binding settlement agreement for $15,000.00 in return for a release of all claims. According to Thomas, on February 1, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel at the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis sent Thomas’s insurance company a settlement offer requesting $15,000.00 in return for release of all claims. Thomas’s insurance company accepted the demand and sent a proposed release. Thomas asserts that on March 15, 2023, Plaintiff signed the settlement agreement.
Based on this evidence, the Court finds that Thomas has carried his initial burden on summary judgment of showing that a prior settlement bars Plaintiff's claims against Thomas, shifting the burden to Plaintiff.
C. Plaintiff’s contentions
Plaintiff has presented evidence that she terminated her attorney-client relationship with the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis sometime between May 25, 2021, and May 28, 2021, just days after retaining the firm. Plaintiff later retained two other law firms to represent her.
On May 28, 2022, one of Plaintiff’s new firms, Phoenix Law Firm, sent a letter advising the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis that Plaintiff had obtained new representation. (Reed dec., exh. 1.) The May 28, 2022 letter asked Mr. Davis to send Phoenix Law Firm “the entire contents of our client’s file” and asked him to direct any questions to Phoenix Law Firm and not to its clients. (Reed dec., exh. 1.)
On June 25, 2021, Phoenix Law Firm sent a letter advising Thomas’s insurance company of Plaintiff’s new representation. (Reed dec., exh. 2.) Thomas’s insurance company responded on June 28, 2021 by sending Phoenix Law Firm an acknowledgement of representation. (Reed dec., exh. 3.)
Subsequently Reed Law, P.C., associated into the case to represent Plaintiff along with Phoenix Law Firm. (See Reed dec., exh. 6.) On December 12, 2022, Thomas’s insurance company acknowledged Reed Law, P.C.’s representation of Plaintiff. (Reed dec., exh. 5.)
On March 8, 2023, after learning about the purported settlement arranged by the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis, Plaintiff’s counsel at Reed Law, P.C. informed Thomas’s insurance company that the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis was not representing Plaintiff and the settlement was invalid. (Reed dec., exh. 6.)
On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel at Reed Law, P.C. sent Thomas’s insurance company Plaintiff’s declaration confirming that the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis did not represent her and asserting that any purported settlement was not valid. (Reed dec., exh. 7.) In her declaration, Plaintiff stated that she had no contact with the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis between May 27, 2021 and March 8, 2023, when a paralegal from the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis called to advise her that the firm had settled her claim for $15,000.00. (Reed dec., exh. 7.) Plaintiff stated that the settlement took place without her consent or permission, that Mr. Davis was not her attorney of record, and that Mr. Davis had no right to speak on her behalf.
In a subsequent declaration, Plaintiff stated that she never gave the Law Offices of Michael D. Davis the authority to settle the case on her behalf. (Reed dec., exh. 9.) Plaintiff stated that the signature on the settlement release was not hers. (Reed dec., exh. 9.)
Based on Plaintiff’s evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether Plaintiff settled her case against Thomas. The Court denies Thomas’s motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Albert Thomas’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.
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.