Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV13946, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV13946 Hearing Date: February 27, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant The People of the State of California
acting by and through the Department of Transportation (erroneously sued as Cal
Trans)’s motion
for summary judgment is DENIED.
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 437c(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.)
Discussion
Negligence
and Motor Vehicle Negligence
The elements of a cause of action for negligence are
duty, breach, causation, and damages.¿¿(Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013)
220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)
Defendant
moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs’ own deposition
testimony reveals that the vehicle that struck them belonged to a different
entity – likely the City of Los Angeles, and GPS data clearly indicates
Caltrans’ vehicle was located miles away from the scene of the accident. Plaintiffs
were travelling on the 105 freeway. (Undisputed Material Fact (UMF) 1.)
Plaintiffs allege that they were in the number two lane when they were hit on
the left side by a passing truck. (UMF 2.) That truck that purportedly hit
Plaintiffs was colored yellow. (UMF 3.) Defendant Caltrans does not have any
yellow trucks. (UMF 4.) Rather, other local public entities, such as the City
of Los Angeles, often operate yellow trucks of similar appearance. (UMF 5.) Plaintiffs
subsequently identified a different truck – a Caltrans vehicle numbered 0257599
– which they believed was involved in the accident. (UMF 6.) However, the
vehicle’s GPS data reveals that the vehicle was on the 110 freeway at that
time. (UMF 7.) A work order related to that Caltrans vehicle corroborates the
vehicle’s location. (UMF 8.) (People v. Rodriguez (2017) 16
Cal.App.5th 355, 374 (“It is settled computer systems that automatically record
data in real time, especially on government-maintained computers, are presumed
to be accurate. Thus, a witness with the general knowledge of an automated
system may testify to his or her use of the system and that he or she has
downloaded the computer information to produce the recording. No elaborate
showing of the accuracy of the recorded data is required.”).
The Court finds Defendant has not met its initial burden
on summary judgment to show that there are no triable issues of fact as to
whether Defendant’s vehicle was involved in the vehicle collision in this
matter.
First, while Defendant states it does not own yellow
trucks, and submits the declaration of Gregory Epperson as evidence for this
assertion, Epperson actually states that Caltrans has a few specialized heavy
equipment, such as loaders, graders, or tractors that come in yellow or green.
(Epperson Decl., ¶ 3.) As
such, this evidence is not sufficient to show that the truck that struck
Plaintiffs could not have been yellow.
Next, as to the GPS data indicating Defendant’s vehicle
was not at the scene of the incident, first, nowhere in the motion does
Defendant provide evidence of the time the collision occurred in order for the
Court to review the GPS data and verify that Defendant’s truck was on the 110
freeway, and not on the 105 freeway where the collision occurred. Moreover,
Defendant submits the declaration of Belinda Romo as evidence that “the GPS
data reveals that Defendant’s vehicle was on the 110 freeway.” However, Romo
never states that the Caltrans vehicle was on the 110 freeway. She merely
states: “Our vendor, Verizon, provides GPS location-based reports of Caltrans’s
fleet vehicles. The Telematics Team handles the report request with the vendor
and will provide the report upon request. This process is straightforward and
is a task that is regularly performed by the Telematics Team. The data provided
is coordinate-based and easily readable. Anyone can enter the coordinates
provided into a typical search engine capable of reading coordinates – such as
Google – and can then identify where the relevant vehicle was located.” (Romo
Decl., ¶ 3.) Then
Defendant submits the GPS data which lists the coordinates of the vehicle with
the associated pin number throughout the entire day. (Defendant’s
Evidence, Exh. D.) However, as discussed above, without evidence of what time
the collision occurred, it is impossible to decipher the location of the
Caltrans vehicle at the time of the collision from the evidence provided.
Lastly, Defendant’s submitted evidence of the work order
suffers from the same flaws. Defendant submits the declaration of Arthur
Dominguez, but Dominguez only states: “I can search for work orders in
Caltrans's IMMS system based on vehicle information. I searched for IMMS
records based on vehicle number 0257599, and I located a work order for April
2, 2019, relating to this vehicle. The work order was numbered 5006977.”
(Dominguez Decl., 3.) Dominguez never states where the location of the work
order is. While the work order itself states it is on the 110 freeway, there is
no evidence to suggest that the collision did not occur on the way to the
location of the work order, especially in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s
deposition testimony states that he was looking for the 110 freeway from his
location when the collision occurred. (Alvarez Depo., 43:9.) Moreover, again,
there is an issue with time. As there is no evidence what time the collision
occurred, there is no way to confirm the work order is for the same period of
time in which the collision occurred. Not only that, but the work order does
not state the time other than “from PM .74 to PM 7.02.” (Defendant’s Evidence,
Exh. E.) No explanation is provided as to what this means.
As
such, because Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to show there are
no triable issues of fact as to its duty, the burden does not shift. The motion
for summary judgment is denied.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant The People of the State of California
acting by and through the Department of Transportation (erroneously sued as Cal
Trans)’s motion
for summary judgment is DENIED. In addition, Notice of Settlement has been filed. Matter is taken off the trial calendar and set for OSC re: Settlement in 45 days.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.