Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 19STCV13458, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.

IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.  Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business.  http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx
    
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.


 


 

Case Number: 19STCV13458    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 74

19STCV13458           BRIAN MATHEW WALKER vs LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Defendant Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is DENIED.

Background

On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff Brian Mathew Walker and Veronica Walker filed this action against Defendants Lincoln Transportation Services Inc. and the Estate of Carlos Hernandez Canizares. The complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) motor vehicle negligence, (2) general negligence, and (3) loss of consortium. The complaint alleges that the Defendants negligently operated a vehicle, which resulted in a vehicle collision and caused severe injuries to the Plaintiffs.  

On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, Fictitious/Incorrect Name, naming Doe 2 as Laufer Group International Ltd. and Doe 3 as Aramsco, Inc.  On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed Requests for Dismissal as to Defendant the Estate of Carlos Hernandez Canizares, Aramsco, Inc., and Laufer Group International Ltd.  

On May 11, 2021, the Court denied Defendant Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication.

Motion

On July 1, 2022, Defendant Lincoln Transportation Services filed the instant motion for summary adjudication. The Notice of Motion indicates that Defendant moves for summary adjudication “on the limited grounds that Lincoln Transportation's financial liability is capped at $15,000.00 pursuant to California's permissive user statutes. Lincoln Transportation's request is brought on the grounds that even if Lincoln Transportation is deemed the legal owner of the subject tractor involved in the instant vehicle collision, California's permissive use statutes California Vehicle Code §§ 17150 and 17151 limits Plaintiffs' recovery against Lincoln Transportation to $15,000.00.” (Not. at 2:2-7.)

Opposition

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue there is no statutory basis or legal authority for the Court to grant the requested summary adjudication, Defendant is a motor carrier subject to federal permissive user laws including the required Form MCS-90 endorsement, Defendant has a non-delegable duty to safely operate vehicles on the road, there remain triable issues of fact as to Defendant’s ownership of the tractor, and Defendant’s evidence is inadmissible.

Reply

In reply, Defendant argues MCS-90 is inapplicable, it did not have a non-delegable duty, common ownership, management, or control of the tractor is irrelevant, it cannot be liable for negligent entrustment, Plaintiffs’ evidence is highly objectionable, and Defendants’ evidence is admissible and sufficient.

Evidentiary Objections

The parties’ evidentiary objections are immaterial to the Court’s disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).)

Motion for Summary Adjudication  

Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial.¿(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) In analyzing such motions, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”¿(Hinesley¿v.¿Oakshade¿Town Center¿(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)¿Thus, summary judgment or summary adjudication is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c);¿Villa v.¿McFarren¿(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.) ¿ 

¿ 

Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”¿(Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1).)

Defendant’s Motion is Procedurally Improper and the Court Cannot Grant the Adjudication Sought

Defendant seeks summary adjudication that “Plaintiff’s recoverable damages are limited to $15,000.00 under California's permissive use statutes.” (Mot. at 12:12-13. See Id. at 14:20-22 (“Lincoln Transportation respectfully requests that the Court adjudicate that if Lincoln Transportation is liable at all to Plaintiffs’, Lincoln Transportation's liability is limited to $15,000.00.”); Not. at 1:28-2:7 (“Defendant . . . will move this Court for an order granting summary adjudication pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(f) on the limited grounds that Lincoln Transportation's financial liability is capped at $15,000.00 pursuant to California's permissive user statutes.”).)

Specifically, Vehicle Code section 17151(a) provides “[t]he liability of an owner, bailee of an owner, or personal representative of a decedent imposed by this chapter and not arising through the relationship of principal and agent or master and servant is limited to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the death of or injury to one person in any one accident and, subject to the limit as to one person, is limited to the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for the death of or injury to more than one person in any one accident and is limited to the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for damage to property of others in any one accident.”

As argued by Plaintiff in opposition, Defendant’s motion is procedurally improper. (Opp. at 8:19-9:11.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f)(1) provides “[a] motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” The only statutory provision that allows a motion for partial summary adjudication is Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(t), which requires a strict process not followed here. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437(c)(t) (“Notwithstanding subdivision (f), a party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to this subdivision.”).) Defendant does not address Plaintiff’s argument in its reply. Defendant contends its motion “is not a reiteration of its previous Motion for Summary Judgment,” (Reply at 2:5-6), which is immaterial to the procedural issue here.

Defendant’s request for summary adjudication does not dispose of a cause of action and does not address an issue of duty. The statute’s reference to affirmative defenses applies when a plaintiff moves for summary adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1) (“A party may move for summary adjudication as to . . . one or more affirmative defenses . . . if the party contends . . . that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action . . .”).) The only damages capable of resolution by summary adjudication are those for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(f)(1) (“A party may move for summary adjudication as to . . . one or more claims for damages, . . . if the party contends . . . that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code.”); DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 421 (“We also conclude that in order to give effect to the first sentence of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), the second sentence must also be read in conjunction with the first sentence, so that the reference to ‘a claim for damages’ must be qualified as referring to the previously defined claim for punitive damages.”).) Accordingly, Defendant cannot obtain an order capping Plaintiff’s available damages as part of a motion for summary adjudication, the only issue presented for summary adjudication. (DeCastro, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at 422 (“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), does not permit summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not dispose of an entire cause of action.”).)

The motion is therefore DENIED. The Court shall not address the parties’ arguments on the merits.