Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV16695, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16695    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff Felicia Patterson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Shannon Yao Wang (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On September 25, 2023, Defendant filed an answer. 

On February 22, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff. 

On February 26, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. 

On May 23, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  The motion was set for hearing on November 25, 2024.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 13, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS  

          Defendant asks the Court to grant summary judgment against Plaintiff. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

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 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).) 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 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.) 

B.   Negligence 

 “The elements of a negligence claim . . . are . . . : a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.) 

C.   Requests for admission 

“[Requests for admission] are different from other civil discovery tools such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents. ‘Most of the other discovery procedures are aimed primarily at assisting counsel to prepare for trial. Requests for admissions, on the other hand, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried.’ ”  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774-775, quoting Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.)  “[A]dmission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘[T]he purpose of the admissions procedure ... is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” (Id. at p. 775, quoting Hogan & Weber, 1 Cal. Civil Discovery (2d ed. 2005) § 9.1, p. 9–2, fns. omitted.)  “Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence.”  (Ibid., citing Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   The complaint 

The complaint alleges in part: 

On July 15, 2021, at or about the intersection of South Harvard Boulevard and West Sixth Street in Los Angeles, “[t]he defendant was operating a motor vehicle and owed a duty to those around her to safely operate said motor vehicle.  The defendant breached this duty to those around her when she suddenly and so [sic] negligently while backing her vehicle and collided with the plaintiff, a pedestrian, causing damage to the Plaintiff’s person.” 

B.   Undisputed facts 

Defendant was not negligent with respect to the accident. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff for any injuries Plaintiff contends resulted from the accident.  Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff for any damages Plaintiff contends resulted from the accident.  Plaintiff did not sustain any injuries as a result of the accident. Plaintiff did not sustain any damages as a result of the accident.  None of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the accident. None of Plaintiff’s alleged damages were caused, in whole or in part, by the accident. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are without merit.  (UMF 1-17.) 

C.   Defendant has carried her initial summary judgment burden 

Relying on the Court’s order deeming admitted matters specified in Defendant’s requests for admission served on Plaintiff, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has admitted Defendant was not negligent, Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not sustain any injuries or damages as a result of the accident, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are without merit.  Defendant has carried her initial burden on summary judgment, shifting the burden to Plaintiff. 

D.   Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion.  As a result, Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact concerning negligence, causation, or damages. 

The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Shannon Yao Wang’s motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff Felicia Patterson’s complaint. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.