Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 21STCV23492, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23492    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: T

21STCV23492 STEVEN ROMERO, et al. vs U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendant Laseraway Medical Group, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Motion for Summary Adjudication is MOOT. Defendant Laseraway Holdings, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Motion for Summary Adjudication is MOOT.

 Introduction

            Defendant/Doe 1 Laseraway Medical Group, Inc.  (LMGI) moved for summary judgment (MSJ) or alternatively for summary adjudication (MSA) against Plaintiff Steven Romero’s (Plaintiff) Complaint.  LMGI’s MSA moved against all three causes of action (COA) alleged in the complaint:  1) motor vehicle, 2) general negligence, and 3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.

Defendant/Doe 2 Laseraway Holdings, LLC (LAH) separately filed an MSJ/MSA against Plaintiff’s Complaint.  LAH’s MSA also moved against all three COAs in the Complaint.

LMGI and LAH are collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

            On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to LMGI and LAH’s MSJ/MSAs.

 Discussion 

            Defendants argued that there is no triable issue of material fact as to duty of care or vicarious liability.  Defendants provided that the driver involved in the pedestrian-automobile accident was Co-Defendant Paul Cory (Cory.)  (Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts[1] (DSSF) 7-8.)  Cory testified that at the time of the accident Cory was in the course and scope of his employment (i.e., running errands for his employer, Co-Defendant Laseraway, LLC.)  (DSSF 10, 11, 19-22.)  Cory attested to never being employed by Defendants.  (DSSF 12, 18.)  Defendants provided facts to show that they are separate entities from each other and from Laseraway, LLC.  (DSSF 13-17.)  With these facts, Defendants showed that there is no triable issue of material fact as to a duty of care or vicarious liability.  Defendants’ met their initial burden of proof and the burden transferred to Plaintiff.  Because Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition, Plaintiff submitted to Defendants’ MSJ/MSAs and did not meet his burden of showing a triable issue of fact.

            Defendants’ MSJ is GRANTED and Defendants’ MSA is MOOT. 

            IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.  JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MOVING DEFENDANTS SHALL BE ENTERED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE.