Judge: Mark V. Mooney, Case: 20STCV47990, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV47990 Hearing Date: October 21, 2022 Dept: 68
SASCHA LYNCH v. GERSON JACTON MORENO, Case No.
20STCV47990
TENTATIVE RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
The Complaint
On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Sascha Lynch (Plaintiff)
filed a complaint against Defendant Gerson Jacton Moreno alleging one cause of
action for motor vehicle negligence.
Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2019, Defendant Gerson Jacton
Moreno (Defendant), hit her motor vehicle with his motor vehicle on the
northbound 110 Freeway in Los Angeles. Plaintiff claims that she sustained
injuries and damages as a result of Defendant hitting her car. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as to
the cause of action.
Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on the basis that all of the
elements for negligence have been met and the facts showing these elements are
undisputed. Plaintiff must establish
each and every element of her claim in order to be entitled to summary
judgment. Even if only one element is
disputed the motion fails. (C.C.P. §
437c(a)(1); §437c(f)(1).)
The elements of a negligence claim are a duty of care, a breach of that
legal duty, and a showing that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of
the resulting injury (damages). Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal.4th 913,
917 (1996).
Basic Summary Judgment Law
A party may move for 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,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment. (Adler v. Manor
Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)
“The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary
judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits
or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact
within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”
(Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993)
12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI
Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)
When interpreting § 437c, courts have held that a three-step
analysis is required: (1) Identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it
is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a
complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on
any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading; (2) Determine
whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which negate the
opponent's claim and justify a judgment in movant’s favor; and (3) Determine
whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material
factual issue. (AARTS Production, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986)
179 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1064-1065.)
The moving party bears an initial burden of production to
make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of
material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to
make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material
fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826,
850; accord Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)
Plaintiff “must present evidence that would require a
reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than
not—otherwise, he would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law but
would have to present his evidence to a trier of fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic
Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851, fns. omitted; Oldcastle
Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554,
562-563.)
The Defendant need only show the existence of a triable
issue of material fact. (Union Bank v. Super Ct. (Demetry) (1995)
31 Cal.4th 573, 590; see Lopez v. Super Ct. (Friedman Bros. Invest.
Co.) (1996) 45 Cal.4th 705, 713; Leslie G. v. Perfy & Assocs.
(1996) 43 Cal.4th 472, 482.)
Neither a moving nor responding party may rely on the mere
allegations or denials of its pleadings. A moving party must submit specific
admissible evidence showing that the responding party cannot establish at least
one element of his, her or its cause of action or defense. (Sangster v.
Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
“The “Golden Rule” on a motion for summary judgment or
summary adjudication is that “if [a fact] is not set forth in the separate
statement, it does not exist.” (Zimmerman, Rosenfeld, Gersh & Leeds LLP
v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477, citing United
Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337.)
The Motion
Plaintiff’s
Motion does not show that there are no triable issues of fact. Indeed, as shown by Plaintiff’s Amended Separate
Statement, much of what is claimed to be “undisputed” are simply facts relating
to the procedural history of this litigation.
For instance, the first few “undisputed facts” relate to the filing of
the complaint and its allegations. Many
of the “undisputed facts” relate to the service of discovery by Plaintiff and
the delivery of emails and attachments. Even
included are facts relating to the service of the summons. The fact that Defendant served unverified
responses to discovery is claimed to not be in dispute. Many of the exhibits are not properly
authenticated and are hearsay.
The failings of the motion are too numerous to justify any
extended discussion. Plaintiff has
failed to establish that each element of the claim are supported by admissible
evidence and are undisputed. This case
cannot be summarily adjudicated.
Evidentiary
Objections
Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence are sustained
as to all objections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Judicial Notice
Defendant has
requested that the Court take judicial notice of a U.S. Supreme Court case, Scott
v. Harris 550 U.S. 372 (2007) attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s request
for judicial notice. The Court denies this request as it provides irrelevant
matter. The Court declines to take judicial notice of Exhibits 2-4 attached to
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as they provide no relevant
information.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.