SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Joseph L. Giles (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) and Sergio Liborio Carrillo (“Carrillo”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from an automobile incident. The complaint sets forth a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.  

Defendants now move for summary judgment against Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that LAUSD’s motion to deem request for admissions admitted conclusively establishes that it and its employees were not negligent, and that Carrillo did not cause the subject accident.  

Plaintiff is in pro per. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before February 28, 2024. (CCP § 437c(b)(2).) To date, no opposition has been filed.¿¿ 

 

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Court’s November 29, 2023 ruling, deeming LAUSD’s Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff, and (2) the deemed Requests for Admissions incorporated in the motion.  

The request is granted as to each item.  (Evid. Code § 452(d); see also Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485 [court may take judicial notice of a party's admissions or concessions in cases where the admission “ ‘cannot reasonably be controverted,’ such as in answers to interrogatories or requests for admission, or in affidavits and declarations filed on the party's behalf.”].)    

 

III. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

A. Burdens on Summary Judgment 

A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (a).) “[I]f 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.) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)    

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 the party 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).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) 

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).) 

 

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.) Defendants’ motion is premised 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 August 10, 2019, “Defendants, and each of them, so negligently operated a motor vehicle, a 2011 Ford F-350, employed the operator of a motor vehicle, entrusted a motor vehicle, and maintained a motor vehicle, a 2011 Ford-250, so as to cause a collision with another motor vehicle, a 2004 Pontiac Vibe, and cause bodily injury to Plaintiff, the operator of the 2004 Pontiac Vibe.” (Compl. at p. 4.)