SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, Norvik Abdalian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Katrin A. Khouigani and Enterprise Rent a Car for damages arising from an automobile incident.  The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence against Defendants. On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Enterprise Rent a Car.  

Defendant Katrin A. Khouigani (“Defendant”) now moves for summary judgment.  Any opposition to the motion was due on or before August 23, 2023. (CCP § 437c(b)(2).) To date, no opposition has been filed.¿¿ 

  

II. Motion for Summary Judgment 

A.  Burdens on Summary Judgment 

Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c).)  Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.”  (Id. at §437c(o)(2).)  A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim.  (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.)  Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.”  (Ibid.)   

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  A defendant moving for 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.  (Id. at §437c(p).)  A defendant may discharge this burden by furnishing either (1) affirmative evidence of the required facts or (2) discovery responses conceding that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish an essential element of the plaintiff's case. If a defendant chooses the latter option he or she must present evidence “and not simply point out that plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence….” Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 865-66, 

[A] defendant may simply show the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action “by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Id. at p. 854.)  Thus, rather than affirmatively disproving or negating an element (e.g., causation), a defendant moving for summary judgment has the option of presenting evidence reflecting the plaintiff does not possess evidence to prove that element. “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing” to support an essential element of his case. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 855.) Under the latter approach, a defendant's initial evidentiary showing may “consist of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses, or admissions by the plaintiff in deposition or in response to requests for admission that he or she has not discovered anything that supports an essential element of the cause of action.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.)  In other words, a defendant may show the plaintiff does not possess evidence to support an element of the cause of action by means of presenting the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses from which an absence of evidence may be reasonably inferred. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.) 

 

Thus, a moving defendant has two means by which to shift the burden of proof under the summary judgment statute: “The defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon. [Citation.] [Or a]lternatively, the defendant may utilize the tried and true technique of negating (‘disproving’) an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” (Brantly v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598.)  

(Leyva v. Garcia (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1095, 1103.) 

 

Until the moving defendant has discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come forward with any evidence. Once the moving defendant has discharged its burden as to a particular cause of action, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action.  (Id. at §437c(p)(2).)  On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's supporting documents are strictly construed and those of his opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion.  (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21.) 

 

B. Motor Vehicle Negligence 

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are “(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.”  (Ladd v.County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) Defendant’s motion is based on Plaintiff’s deemed admissions. (Min. Order, May 22, 2023.)  

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.”  (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)  Requests for admissions “differs fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The purpose of the admissions procedure . . . is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’  Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.”  [Citations.]  Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contrary evidence.  [Citation.]”  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.) 

As framed by the pleadings, Plaintiff alleges that on February 18, 2017, Defendant “…so negligently and wantonly hired, employed, entrusted, leased, loaned, rented, bailed, instructed, repaired, approved, managed, authorized, maintained, inspected, serviced, supervised, permitted, consented to, drove and operated a motor vehicle, to wit a 2017 Audi Q5 vehicle, CA License No. 7WWM449, so as to proximately cause personal injuries and damages to Plaintiff.” (UMF 2; Compl. at p. 5.) On May 9, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint, asserting its general denial and affirmative defenses. (UMF 4.) On May 22, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem the matters within Requests for Admission (Set One) admitted.  (UMFs 6-7.) Plaintiff is therefore deemed to have admitted the following: no claims for past or future lost wages, no claim for loss of earning capacity. (UMFs 9-10; Majd Decl. Exh. C.) Plaintiff is also deemed to have admitted that he has no factual basis to support the allegation the Defendant breached any duty of care to him, no factual basis to support the assertion that the Defendant operated the vehicle recklessly and at a speed that did not allow Defendant to stop within a safe distance, Plaintiff did not suffer disabling and serious personal injury, pain, suffering and anguish in connection to the incident, and that Plaintiff is capable of performing his regular and usual occupation. (UMFs 11-14;Majd Decl. Exh. C.) 

Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted that Defendant did not breach a duty of care to Plaintiff, and that Defendant did not cause Plaintiff any of his claimed damages. Accordingly, Defendant cannot be held liable for a claim of negligence. The evidence is sufficient to meet Defendant’s moving burden to show it is entitled to judgment as a matter on Plaintiffs’ claims. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.  Because Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, Plaintiff necessarily fails to meet the shifted burden. 

 

III. Conclusion  

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.