Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 19STCV23612, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV23612    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 55

LORENZO v. LOS MORALES TRUCKING, INC.                                19STCV23612

Hearing Date:  2/6/23  Dept. 55

#5:   MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant LAUSD

RP:   .

Summary

On 7/3/19, plaintiffs filed the lead action, Lorenzo v. Los Morales (19STCV23612) against the trucking defendants.

On 1/13/21, this lead case was ordered consolidated for all purposes with 20STCV23961 and 20STCV12415. 

The Complaint in consolidated case number 20STCV23961 alleges that GLOBAL CENTURY, as insurance broker, was used by THANDI as a device to broker insurance policies between California trucking insureds, like LOS MORALES, a small trucking company, and the non-California-admitted, insolvent insurer, Global Hawk, provided a policy for indemnity in the event of catastrophic loss, but now the Lorenzo plaintiffs are unlikely to receive any compensation from GLOBAL HAWK’S liquidation proceedings.

On 2/3/21, plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint regarding separately filed wrongful death lawsuits that arise out of the same double fatal pedestrian accident. Allegedly, plaintiffs are the parents of two sisters who died in April 2019, after being run over by a dump truck, while they were pedestrians in a crosswalk, on route to middle school, due to the failure to provide for previously school-arranged crossing guards for student safety on particularly dangerous streets near the school, at a time a substitute crossing guard was needed.

On 4/2/21, GREEN DOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS CALIFORNIA and GREEN DOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS NATIONAL were added as DOE defendants 1 and 2, to the Second Amended Complaint.

On 7/16/21, Defendant/Cross-Complainant LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LAUSD) filed an official form Cross-Complaint against GREEN DOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS CALIFORNIA, GREEN DOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS NATIONAL,  ORIVERA TRUCKING, LLC; LOS MORALES TRUCKING INC; GLOBAL HAWK INSURANCE COMPANY RISK RETENTION GROUP; and STANLEY RANDLE.  The causes of action are:  1)  Indemnification, 2) Apportionment of Fault and 3) Declaratory Relief.

On 6/15/21, the Court overruled the Demurrer of LAUSD, and, on 10/6/21, the Court of Appeal summarily denied an unopposed petition for writ of mandate filed 8/16/21, by Defendant LAUSD, which had requested to overturn the demurrer ruling.

On 12/12/22, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, in Lorenzo v. LAUSD (20STCV12415), against LAUSD and others, including for Negligence and Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Gov. Code § 835).

MP Position

Moving party requests an order granting summary judgment with respect to the Complaint, on bases including the following:

1. LAUSD is immune from liability for the Lorenzo Sisters’ travel to and from school.

See Cal. Educ. Code § 44808.

2. Guarding traffic is a municipal police function, and as a government entity, LAUSD is

immune from liability for the Lorenzo Sisters’ accident due to any alleged failure to

provide police protection or otherwise providing inadequate police protection. Gov.

Code Section § 845.

3. LAUSD has discretionary immunity from liability for the Lorenzo Sisters’ accident due to any decision which was made to not request, or otherwise provide, crossing guards. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 815.2, 820.2, and 845.

4. The allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) regarding

LAUSD’s organization, supervision and management of a volunteer crossing guard

program are untrue, and no reasonable person could find that LAUSD acted

unreasonably under the circumstances.

(Motion, pp. 2 – 3.)

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion for summary judgment against complainants is granted.

The Court determines that moving party filed evidence sufficient to shift the burden of proof, and that, without an opposition,  there are no triable issues of material fact, as to each issue raised, including whether Defendant managed a crossing guard or has immunity. 

“[I]f all the papers submitted by the parties show there is no triable issue of material fact and the ‘moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)), the court must grant the motion for summary judgment.”  Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1320.  Accord  Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409. 

*IF ALL PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*