Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 18STCV03165, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV03165    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOVING PAPERS:

1. Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2. Declaration of Evelyn Levine Solis in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
3. Declaration of Jeffrey Munoz in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
4. Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

JAMES AND ROSS’ NON-OPPOSITION PAPERS:

1. Plaintiffs Mildred James, Woodrow James Jr., and Anetra Ross’s, by and through Mildred James as her Guardian Ad Litem, Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment

GUEVARA OPPOSITION PAPERS:

1. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2. Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
3. Compendium of Declarations and Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
4. Evidentiary Objections to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

GUEVARA & ALTAMIRANO OPPOSITION PAPERS:

1. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2. Separate Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Facts in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
3. Declaration of C.R. McReynolds in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

REPLY PAPERS:

1. Defendants’ Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
2. Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
3. Declaration of Evelyn Levine Solis in Support of Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
4. Evidentiary Objections to Guevara’s Multiple and Cumulative Opposing Papers to Motion for Summary Judgment

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Maria Guevara (Guevara) and Ana Altamirano (Altamirano) sued Defendants Jeffrey Munoz Arriaga (Munoz) and Hector Hernandez (Hernandez) based on injuries Guevara and Altamirano sustained in a multi-vehicle car crash.  Guevara and Altamirano claim that Munoz, driving Hernandez’s car, entered the intersection during a red light, colliding with Guevara’s vehicle with Altamirano as a passenger, causing them to impact a third vehicle.  Plaintiffs Mildred James, Woodrow James Jr., and Anetra Ross by and through her guardian ad litem Mildred James (collectively, James Plaintiffs) have also sued Guevara, Munoz, Hernandez, and Defendant Jamie Alcantara based on the same motor vehicle collision.

Munoz and Hernandez (Moving Defendants) move for summary judgment on Guevara and Altamirano’s Complaint as well as the James Plaintiffs’ Complaint.  Guevara individually opposes the motion.  Additionally, Guevara and Altamirano collectively oppose the motion.  The James Plaintiffs have filed a notice of non-opposition. 

Preliminarily, the Court notes that on December 28, 2022, Moving Defendants filed a notice of settlement which indicates that Plaintiffs Guevara and Altamirano have agreed to settle all claims against Moving Defendants.  Further Moving Defendants state that the instant motion for summary judgment is off calendar as to Plaintiffs Guevara and Altamirano.  As such, the Court will analyze the instant motion solely as it pertains to the James Plaintiffs.  

LEGAL STANDARDS –SUMMARY JUDGMENT

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

“On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues.  Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.”  (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839 [cleaned up].)  Further, “the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true.  Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.”  (Id. at p. 840 [cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)

DISCUSSION

Moving Defendants move for summary judgment on the James Plaintiffs’ causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence based on the sudden emergency defense.

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: (1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of that duty; and (3) harm to the plaintiff caused by that breach.  (Kesner v. Superior Court  (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142.)  “[R]ecovery in a negligence action depends as a threshold matter on whether the defendant had a duty to use due care . . . .”  (Southern California Gas Leak Cases (2019) 7 Cal.5th 391, 397 [cleaned up].) 

            Here, Moving Defendants argue Munoz did not breach a duty of care to the James Plaintiffs because he was in imminent peril.  “[A] person who, without negligence on his part, is suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with peril, arising from either the actual presence, or the appearance, of imminent danger to himself or to others, is not expected nor required to use the same judgment and prudence that is required of him in exercise of ordinary care in calmer and more deliberate moments.”  (Leo v. Dunham (1953) 41 Cal.2d 712, 714.)

            Moving Defendants attest that Guevara, on a circular green light, instead of yielding to oncoming traffic, suddenly and without warning turned left into the intersection in front of Munoz’s vehicle, creating a sudden emergency and unexpected danger for Munoz.  Moving Defendants further argue that under these circumstances Munoz was not expected to use the same judgment and prudence required in the exercise of ordinary care.  Moving Defendants advance the following Undisputed Material Facts (UMFs) in support of their contention:

• At the time of the subject accident, the Plaintiff GUEVARA made a left turn onto Southbound, Figueroa Blvd. in front of the Defendant MUNOZ’s vehicle. 
• At the time of the subject accident, the Defendant Munoz was proceeding straight.
• The Plaintiff GUEVARA had a circular green.
• The Plaintiff Guevara had to yield to opposing traffic in order to safely make the left turn.
• The Defendant MUNOZ was faced with a sudden emergency and unexpected danger when the Plaintiff GUEVARA suddenly and without warning, turned left into the roadway in front of his vehicle.
• The collision caused the Plaintiff GUEVARA’s vehicle to impact the JAMES’ vehicle, a 2007 Chevy HHR driven by Plaintiff, M. JAMES, carrying Plaintiffs, W. JAMES and ROSS as passengers, which was located Northbound, Figueroa Blvd. in the right lane.

(UMFs, Nos. 4-10.)

            Moving Defendants have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a sudden emergency defense under Leo v. Dunham.  As such, the burden shifts to the James Plaintiffs to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Munoz’s actions were caused by circumstances amounting to his real or perceived imminent peril, or whether they were caused by Munoz’s own negligence. 

            As the James Plaintiffs have filed a notice of non-opposition, they have failed to proffer any evidence to dispute Moving Defendants’ proffered UMFs.  Accordingly, the Court finds the James Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in creating a triable issue of material fact.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court finds that Moving Defendants have met their burden to show no triable issue of material fact and that Moving Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the James Plaintiffs.  The Court thus grants Moving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the James Plaintiffs only.

The Court orders Moving Defendants to give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.