Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 21STLC04289, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC04289, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC04289 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: 26

Pollard, et al. v. Rachal, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Manheim Investments, Inc. dba Manheim California’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Dena Pollard, Kaileen Cisneros, a minor through their guardian ad litem Dena Pollard, and Adidja Millar, a minor through their guardian ad litem Dena Pollard (“Plaintiffs”) brought this action for motor vehilce neglience against Defendants Edward Joseph Rachel (“Defendant Rachal”), Jose Gonzalez (“Defendant Gonzalez”), and Manheim Investments, Inc. dba Manheim California (“Defendant Manheim”) on June 7, 2021. Defendant Manheim filed an Answer on November 9, 2021.

Defendant Manheim filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication on March 3, 2023. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on April 27, 2023.

Discussion

The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for motor vehilce negligence. Specifically, that on June 11, 2019, at 1611 E. 53rd Street, Los Angeles, California, Defendants so negligently and carelessly owned, operated, entrusted and maintained their motor vehicle, so as to cause injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. (Compl., ¶MV-1.) Defendant Rachal allegedly drove the vehicle that collided with Plaintiffs; Defendants Gonzalez and Manheim allegedly owned the offending vehicle. (Id. at MV-2.)

Defendant Manheim moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. A defendant seeking summary judgment must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiff is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until Defendant meets its initial moving burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839-840.)

Defendant Manheim’s request for judicial notice of a certified copy of the Department of Motor Vehicle registration associated with the 2003 Cadillac, VIN 1G6KS54Y33U274485 associated with license plate number 5EUJ319, is granted pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Defendant Manheim contends that Plaintiffs lack admissible evidence to prove the identity of the vehicle involved in the subject motor vehicle accident or that Defendant Manheim owned the vehicle. Alternatively, Defendant Manheim argues it can prove that it never owned the vehicle and merely auctioned it. An owner’s liability under Vehicle Code section 17150 requires a plaintiff to prove (1) defendant owned the vehicle at the time of the accident, and (2) the vehicle was operated with the owner’s permission. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. co. v. Wellman (1950) 98 Cal.app.2d 151, 154, disapproved on other grounds by Cooke v. Tsipourloglou (1963) 59 Cal.2d 660, 666-667.)

Defendant Manheim cites to Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 for the proposition that a defendant can prevail on summary judgment by showing “the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence: The defendant must show that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence, because otherwise the plaintiff might be able to establish the elements of the cause of action; the defendant must also show that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence, because the plaintiff must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to oppose the motion . . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

In support of this, the Motion sets forth the following facts. On June 11, 2019, Defendant Rachal rear-ended Plaintiffs’ vehicle on 53rd Street, Los Angeles, California. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Knaack Decl., Exh. A at ¶¶1-2(a); Exhs. B-C at response no. 120.) As shown by their discovery responses dated July 27, 2022, Plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence to prove the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident or that it was owned or controlled by Defendant Manheim. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; Knaack Decl., Exh. E at response nos. 1-4; Exh. G at response nos. 2-9; Exh. I at response no. 1.) Defendant Manheim is a wholesale automobile auction company that auctions automobiles to buyers on behalf of sellers. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 3; Espinoza Decl., ¶3.) Defendant Manheim does not own the vehicles it auctions unless there is a problem with the auction, in which case it may purchase the vehicle to resell through its affiliate, Meridian Remarketing. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 4; Espinoza Decl., ¶4.) On February 27, 2019, Manheim auctioned a 2003 Cadillac Seville SLS, VIN 1GKS54Y33U274485 (“the Cadillac”). (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 5; Espinoza Decl., ¶10.) The Cadillac was sold at auction by STG Auto Group to Genuine Automotive Enterprise and paid for by money order. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 6; Espinoza Decl., ¶10 and Exhs. A-D.) Defendant Manheim did not own the Cadillac at the time of the accident with Plaintiffs and had never owned it. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 8; Espinoza Decl., ¶11.)

This evidence carries Defendant Manheim’s initial burden of proof regarding its lack of ownership of the subject Cadillac at any time, including the time it was involved in the accident with Plaintiff. The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact regarding Defendant Manheim’s ownership of the vehicle. In opposition, Plaintiffs dispute that Defendant Manheim had never owned the subject vehicle. They present a DMV-certified copy of the vehicle registration ownership document showing that Defendant Manheim had purchased the Cadillac on February 27, 2019 and was the owner as of June 11, 2019. (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 2-8; Yeager Decl., Exhs. A-B.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs cite to case law that holds “anyone transacting business with the owner of a motor vehicle can rely upon the title as reflected by the registration certificate, without further inquiry.” (T & O Mobile Homes, Inc. v. United California Bank (1985) 40 Cal.3d 441, 449 [citing First National Bank of Hays City v. Sprigg (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 258, 259-260].) The effect of the vehicle registration document is to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact regarding Defendant Manheim’s ownership of the Cadillac on the date of the accident such that it is liable for Plaintiffs’ damages.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Manheim Investments, Inc. dba Manheim California’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED.

Plaintiffs to give notice.