Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 20STCV20582, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV20582, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

PLEASE NOTE:

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

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.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Case Number: 20STCV20582 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 30

RON YORK, AN INDIVIDUAL vs EVA LENDOWSKI, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant seeks juridical notice of Plaintiff’s complaint, which request is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.” (Id. at §437c(o)(2).) A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.) Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., §437c(c).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for summary judgement on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a matter of law by the Graves Amendment.

The Graves Amendment provides in pertinent part:

(b) In general. An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person … shall not be liable under the law of any State … by reason of being the owner of the vehicle … 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—

(2) 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 …

Defendant is engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles. (SSUF 4.) Defendant engaged in no action or inaction on the date of the Incident which caused or contributed to the Incident or was itself negligent in any fashion. (SSUF 5.) Indeed, Defendant’s only connection to this case is the fact that it rented a vehicle to Defendant Lendowski. Lendowski was not an employee, vendor, or agent of Moving Defendant. (SSUF 6.) There is no evidence that the Van was defective or in disrepair, nor any evidence that the renting of a vehicle to Defendant Lendowski was negligent. (SSUF 7.) There is nothing in the rental agreement to suggest that there was any reason not to rent the Van to Defendant Lendowski. (SSUF 8, Exh. A). The fleet management records for the Van contain two entries prior to the date of the Incident on June 5, 2018. The first entry shows that the Van received an alignment and preventative maintenance on March 20, 2018, over two months before the Incident. The second entry, also on March 20, 2018, shows that a new tire was installed on the Van. There is no indication that the Van required any work other than routine maintenance. (SSUF 9, Exh. B.) Further, there is nothing in the service records for the Van to suggest that there were any defects or mechanical issues with the vehicle on or before the date of the Incident on June 5, 2018. (SSUF 10, Exh. C.) The Accident Declaration contains nothing to suggest that the Van contained any defect or suffered from any malfunction that led to the Incident’s occurring. (SSUF 11, Exh. D.)

Defendant has met its burden on summary judgment to show no triable issues of material fact exist as to whether the Graves Amendment bars liability against it. Defendant’s evidence shows Defendant is in the business of renting vehicles and it rented the vehicle to Defendant Lendowski. Also, Defendant was not itself negligent. Defendant presents evidence that it inspected the vehicle, and no defects of malfunctions were found. Defendant has also shown that it properly ensured Defendant Lendownski was licensed to drive the rental vehicle, as Lendowski’s driver’s license is attached to the rental agreement. As such, it appears the only connection Defendant has to Lendowski is that it rented her a vehicle. The burden shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition and thus has not met its burden to present triable issues of material fact. Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.