Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV04080, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 24PSCV04080    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Maria Isabel Saldarriaga Velasquez

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. On November 26, 2024, plaintiff Maria Isabel Saldarriaga Velasquez filed a complaint against defendants United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), Miguel Angel Gutierrez, and Does 1 to 25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) general negligence and (2) motor vehicle negligence. Plaintiff alleges Gutierrez, a UPS driver, drove his motor vehicle into Plaintiff while Plaintiff was walking towards Costco, located at 1220 W Foothill Blvd., Azusa, CA 91702.

On January 30, 2025, UPS filed its answer to the complaint. Gutierrez filed his answer on February 7, 2025.

On January 30, 2025, UPS filed this present motion. Prior to filing, UPS’ counsel met and conferred telephonically with Plaintiff’s counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Teja Decl., ¶ 5.)

A hearing on the motion to strike is set for April 17, 2025, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

UPS moves to strike the negligent entrustment allegations from Plaintiff’s complaint on grounds that UPS admitted to vicarious liability in its answer. Alternatively, UPS moves for judgment on the pleadings as to any claim for negligent entrustment to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to bring a negligent entrustment claim against UPS. For the following reasons, the court DENIES UPS’ motion.

Legal Standard

Motion to Strike

Upon a party’s motion or the court’s own motion, the court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

An immaterial or irrelevant allegation includes: “(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense,” “(2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense,” or “(3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10.)

Negligent Entrustment and Vicarious Liability

When an employee causes injury in a motor vehicle collision during the course of the employee’s employment, the employer may be held liable directly for negligent entrustment and indirectly through vicarious liability. (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1151-1152.) But when both theories are asserted, the employer can bar negligent entrustment liability by admitting vicarious liability. (Id. at p. 1152.)

Discussion

The complaint alleges Gutierrez operated the motor vehicle at issue. (Compl., ¶¶ GN-1, MV-2(a).) The complaint alleges Gutierrez operated the vehicle in the course of his employment with UPS. (Compl., ¶¶ GN-1, MV-2(b).) The complaint also alleges UPS owned the vehicle and entrusted it to Gutierrez. (Compl., ¶ MV-2(c)-(e).) In UPS’ answer to the complaint, UPS denies any negligence but admits that Gutierrez “was acting in the course and scope of his work relationship with” UPS when the incident occurred and that if Gutierrez acted negligently, UPS is vicariously liable. (UPS Answer, pp. 1:28-2:5.)

However, the court finds that the answer by UPS does not actually admit to Gutierrez being the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the incident. Instead, despite admitting Gutierrez was acting within the scope of Gutierrez’s employment with UPS, UPS otherwise denies each and every allegation of the complaint. (UPS Answer to FAC, p. 1:23-27.) Gutierrez also denies each and every allegation of the complaint and does not admit to being the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident. (Gutierrez Answer, pp. 1:23-2:2.) Because neither UPS nor Gutierrez admit Gutierrez was the driver of the subject vehicle and UPS has not admitted that they are vicariously liable for Gutierrez’s actions, the court finds UPS may still be held liable for negligent entrustment if Gutierrez was the operator.

Accordingly, UPS’ motion to strike is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, UPS’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint is DENIED.