Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC03720, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC03720 Hearing Date: September 12, 2023 Dept: 26
Aragon
v. Freeman, et al.
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
(CCP §
437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants AVIS Budget Car Rental, LLC and AVIS Rent A Car
System, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary
Adjudication, is GRANTED.
DEFENDANTS ARE TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN
20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Jorge Aragon (“Plaintiff”)
filed the instant action against Defendants Ammie Laverne Freeman (“Defendant
Freeman”), Tamara Kirk (“Defendant Kirk”), AVIS Budget Car Rental, LLC, and
AVIS Rent A Car System, LLC (“the AVIS Defendant”) on June 23, 2022. The AVIS
Defendants filed an answer on September 14, 2022. Plaintiff’s applications for
service by publication upon Defendants Freeman and Kirk were rejected by the
Court on February 1, 2023.
The AVIS Defendants
filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary
Adjudication, on June 23, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 29,
2023, which the Court notes was untimely served electronically and by mail on
Defendants on the same date. (Opp., Proof of Service, p. 22.) Electronic
service should have been performed by August 25, 2023 and mail service should
have been performed by August 24, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd.
(a)(4)(B); § 1013, subd. (a).)
Discussion
The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) motor vehicle
negligence; and (2) general negligence, against all Defendants. The cause of
action for motor vehicle negligence is alleged against the AVIS Defendants on
the grounds that they owned the motor vehicle which was operated with their
permission, and entrusted the motor vehicle. (Id. at ¶¶MV-2.) The
general negligence cause of action more specifically alleges that Plaintiff was
the driver of his vehicle during an automobile versus automobile collision on
June 20, 2020. (Id. at GN-1.) Defendant Freeman, the driver of the other
vehicle, made an improper right-hand turn into Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Ibid.)
The AVIS Defendants move for summary judgment, or in the
alternative, summary adjudication, on the grounds that they: (1) were not
independently negligent, nor did they commit a criminal action; (2) did not
use, operate, or control the motor vehicle; (3) did not negligently entrust any
vehicle in connection with the alleged accident; (4) did not negligently
manage, maintain, inspect, or repair any vehicle in
connection with the alleged accident; (5) did not employ any
persons who operated the subject vehicle within the scope of employment; (6) were
not the agent or employee of other defendants; (7) did not authorize Defendant
Freeman to operate the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident; and (8) are
entitled to judgment under the federal Graves Amendment.
Defendants move for summary judgment 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.)
Evidentiary Objections
Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are ruled on as follows:
·
To Motosko Decl.: Nos. 1-9 overruled.
Defendants’ Initial Burden of Proof
In support of their grounds for judgment, the AVIS
Defendants provide evidence of the following facts as undisputed. The AVIS
Defendants are in the business of “car rental.” (Motion, Separate Statement,
Fact Nos. 1-2; Motosko Decl., Exhs. B-C.) On May 28, 2020, Defendant Kirk
rented a vehicle from the AVIS Defendants in the normal course of its rental
car business. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 4; Exh. E.) Defendant Kirk
did not list Defendant Freeman, or any other person, as an authorized driver of
the vehicle. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 5; Motosko Decl., ¶¶10-1-
and Exhs. D, F.) Defendant Kirk was required to present her driver’s license
prior to the rental and the license information was recorded into the computer
system. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 6-7; Motosko Decl., ¶¶6-7 and
Exh. D.)
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing that Defendant
Kirk’s driver’s license was facially invalid or that Defendant Kirk appeared
impaired or otherwise unfit to drive. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 8,
10; Miskell Decl., Exhs. D-1, D-2, D-3.) Plaintiff’s verified discovery
responses only state the same facts alleged in the Complaint, and that the AVIS
Defendants rented out the vehicle without verifying that Defendants Kirk and
Freeman had coverage. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 13, 15-18; Miskell
Decl., Exhs. C, D-1, D-2, D-3.) No facts, documents, or witnesses are provided
by Plaintiff to show that the AVIS Defendants rented the vehicle to Defendant
Freeman, who was allegedly the driver of the vehicle that collided with
Plaintiff. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 19-20; Exhs. D-1, D-2, D-3.) Nor
do Plaintiff’s discovery responses indicate the vehicle malfunctioned or was
defective. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 24-25; Miskell Decl., Exhs.
D-2, D-3.) The AVIS Defendants’ records confirm that the vehicle was properly
maintained. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 26; Motosko Decl., Exh. G.)
There has never been an employment or agency relationship between the AVIS
Defendants and Defendants Freeman and Kirk. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact
Nos. 27-28; Motosko Decl., ¶¶14-15.) Plaintiff has provided no facts, documents
or witnesses to support a claim of employment or agency between the AVIS
Defendants and Defendants Freeman and Kirk. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact
Nos. 29-30; Miskell Decl., Exhs. D-1, D-2, D-3.)
Finally, Defendants rely on the Graves Amendment as a bar to
holding a rental car company vicariously liable for damages caused by the
renter unless the rental car company committed independent acts of negligence
or criminal wrongdoing. (Citing 49 USC, § 30106.) The Graves Amendment states
in relevant part:
(a) In general.--An owner of a motor
vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the
owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision
thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the
owner), 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--
(1) the owner (or an affiliate of 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 (or an affiliate of the owner).
(49 USC, § 30106, subd. (a).) In opposition, Plaintiff
points to the next subdivision of the Graves Amendment, which does not exempt
rental car companies from state laws that impose financial responsibility or
insurance standards and liability for the failure to meet such standards:
(b) Financial responsibility
laws.--Nothing in this section supersedes the law of any State or political
subdivision thereof--
(1) imposing financial responsibility
or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of
registering and operating a motor vehicle; or
(2) imposing liability on business
entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles
for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance
requirements under State law.
(49 USC, § 30106, subd. (b).) Plaintiff contend that
Defendants’ argument that the Graves Amendment preempts all state
vicarious liability laws is too broad because financial responsibility and
insurance standard laws are not preempted. He goes on to argue that Cal.
Vehicle Code section 17150 is a financial responsibility law, which Defendants
dispute. The California Court of Appeal, however, has held that [California
Vehicle Code] sections 17150–17151 are not part of the Financial Responsibility
Laws . . . .” (Goodson v. Perfect Fit Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 508, 514.) Therefore, Plaintiff cannot rely on Cal. Vehicle Code
section 17150 as an exception to the Graves Amendment.
Based on these facts and controlling law, the AVIS
Defendants have carried their initial burden of proof to show that Plaintiff
has no evidence to establish the elements of his claims against them for direct
negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent maintenance, or vicarious
liability for negligence. To the extent Plaintiff argues in opposition that
“Defendants misrepresent the burdens required in a Motion for Summary
Judgment,” he offers no explanation as to what misrepresentation was made. (Opp.,
p. 2:17-18.) This shifts the burden of proof to Plaintiff to demonstrate the
existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the causes of action for
general and motor vehicle negligence.
Plaintiff’s Burden to Demonstrate the Existence of a
Triable Issue of Material Fact
Plaintiff’s opposition cites no evidence to dispute the
facts set forth in the AVIS Defendants’ Motion. Instead, Plaintiff relies
entirely on the aforementioned evidentiary objections to the declaration of
Jeanne Motosko, which the Court has already overruled. (See Opp., Separate
Statement, Fact Nos. 1-30.) Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence
of any triable issues of material fact with respect to the elements of the
claims against the AVIS Defendants.
Conclusion
Defendants AVIS Budget Car Rental, LLC and AVIS Rent A Car
System, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary
Adjudication, is GRANTED.
DEFENDANTS ARE TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN
20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.