Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV05381, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05381    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 October 5, 2023¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  21STCV05381

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Estate of Manuel Villalpando, et al. v. Yama Seiki USA, Inc., et al.

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, Yama Seiki USA, Inc.

¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiffs, Estate of Manuel Villalpando, Fabiola Xiomara Nava Villalpando, and Amiee Villalpando

¿¿                                                         

TRIAL DATE:                        July 8, 2024  

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion for Summary Judgment

¿ Tentative Rulings:                 (1)  Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

¿¿ 

            On February 9, 2021, Plaintiffs, Estate of Manuel Villalpando, Fibiola Xiomara Nava Villalpando, and Aimee Villalpando (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Yama Seiki USA, Inc. (“Defendant”), and DOES 1 through 50. On September 20, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Product Liability – Strict Liability; (2) Product Liability – Negligence; (3) Product Liability – Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (4) Product Liability – Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose; and (5) Wrongful Death.

            Defendant now files a Motion for Summary Judgment.

B. Procedural¿¿ 

¿ 

 On July 19, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On September 28, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Along with its moving papers, Defendant requested this Court take Judicial Notice of the following documents:

1.      Exhibit 1: First Amended Complaint

2.      Exhibit 12: Plaintiff’s serious and willful complaint

The Court GRANTS this request and takes judicial notice of the above.

III. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections to Defendant’s Evidence

Sustain: none.

Overrule: 1-7

Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Evidence on Opposition

Sustain: none.

Overrule: 1-5

IV. ANALYSIS¿ 

A. Legal 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.) CCP Section 437(c) “requires the trial judge to grant 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.”¿ (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.)¿ 

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. ) 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.)¿ 

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 that cause of action or a defense thereto.¿¿¿ 

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) 

B. Discussion 

            Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment asks this Court to summarily adjudicate the causation issue in this case. Defendant argues that it did not cause this accident, and its machines have been used at the German Machine Products (“GMP”) facility (Decedent’s employer) both before and after the accident without incident. Defendant contends the accident would not have occurred if the Decedent had taken the simple step of turning the power off to the machine and safely locked the main switch as required by Cal/OSHA and industry standards following the rules of lockout/tagout. Defendant also argues that the accident would also have been prevented if Decedent’s employer had complied with lockout/tagout and used the designed safety features in the FCV-620. Lastly, Defendant’s motion is based on the argument that the accident was also caused by GMP personnel overriding the machine’s limit switch and engaging in serious and willful misconduct.

            The Court will analyze the causation issues below.

Whether the Actions of GMP were Serious, Willful, or were a Superseding Cause

            Here, Defendant argues that the actions of GMP were serious and willful, and were a superseding cause which cut off liability to Defendant. Causation is an essential element of a tort action.  Defendant is not liable unless its conduct was a “legal cause” of the plaintiff’s injury.  (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 772.)  “[A] defendant’s conduct is a cause of a plaintiff’s injury if: (1) the plaintiff would not have suffered the injury but for the defendant’s conduct, or (2) the defendant’s conduct was one of multiple causes sufficient to cause the alleged harm.”  (Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ameron Pole Products LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 974, 981 [citing Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 969 and Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1049].)  Legal causation is generally a question of fact to be determined by the jury unless, as a matter of law, the facts admit of only one conclusion.  (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205-06.)  

“The intervening act of a negligent third person will cut off a defendant’s liability (thus ‘supervening’) if the intervening action (or the type of risk of harm caused by the intervening act) is unforeseeable or extraordinary.”  (Maupin v. Widling (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 568, 571.)  It is “well established” that when a defendant’s alleged negligence is based upon his or her having exposed the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm from the actions of others, the occurrence of the type of conduct against which the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff cannot properly constitute a superseding cause that completely relieves the defendant of any responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries.  (Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol (2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, 725.)  

Defendant argues that this accident was caused by the serious and willful misconduct of GMP, and notes that Plaintiffs petitioned for serious and willful misconduct per Labor Code § 4553 alleging: “It is contended that the actions of Defendant [GMP], as alleged hereinabove, constituted serious and willful misconduct, and was in reckless disregard of the probable consequences and safety of MANUEL VILLALPANDO. As a direct result of the serious and willful misconduct of Defendant, GERMAN MACHINED PRODUCTS, INC., as described herein, MANUEL VILLALPANDO sustained serious injury resulting in his death.” Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ then counsel was correct.

Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are judicially estopped from claiming that GMP did not engage in serious and willful misconduct. Defendant asserts that by allowing an employee inside of a fully energized industrial machine (whether or not a door was unlocked or removed, with no lockout tag, and overriding the limit switch) illustrates that GMP’s actions caused this accident.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment argues in a conclusory way, and provides almost no fact to case analysis. Further, the Moving papers rest on conclusory arguments which are almost entirely based on disputed facts (SSUMF Nos. 29, 34) which are disputed based on the declarations of opposing experts. The Court is not convinced by Defendant’s arguments, or concurrent filings, that Defendant has met its burden in showing that there is no issue of material fact in this case. Moreover, many of the facts that Defendant argues proves that it was not the cause of Decedent’s death are not listed in its separate statement of undisputed material facts. Because Defendant failed to meet its initial burden, the Court DENIES summary judgment. Moreover, even if the Court were to find that Defendant met its initial burden, the Motion would still be DENIED as the opposition has raised issues of disputed material fact per their expert declarations. The evidence raising triable issues of fact includes the Plaintiff’s expert declaration of Douglas Nix ¶¶ 12, 15-18, and 21-23 and the Deposition of Decedent’s co-worker Paul Castellanos pp. 14-15, 34-37, 45-46, 49.  Courts cannot grant Summary Judgment based upon a weighing of conflicting expert opinions or depending on which expert declaration the Court might find to be more convincing. Instead, such evidence presents a triable issue of fact that must be decided by the fact finder at trial.

V. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court’s tentative ruling is to DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.