Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV15566, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV15566, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15566 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 29

Castillo v. Brooks
21STCV15566
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Kimberly Brooks.

TENTATIVE

The motion is granted.

Background

According to the Complaint, on April 26, 2019, Plaintiff Rogelio Magana Castillo (“Plaintiff”)

met with Defendant Kimberly Brooks (“Defendant”) at Zen Buffet in Monrovia, California.

Plaintiff alleges (among other things) that Defendant “raised her glass of water towards Plaintiff, stared at him and sta[r]ted yelling obscene words at Plaintiff right before she threw the glass at Plaintiff from a distance of less than four (4) feet from Plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff asserts (among other things) that the glass hit him “on the left cheekbone area injuring Plaintiffs cheekbone, left eye socket and left ear.” (Id., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff filed the complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 50 on April 26, 2021,

alleging causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery.

Defendant filed her answer on November 15, 2022.

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved as counsel. Since that time, Plaintiff has been representing himself in pro per.

On August 12, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set Two).

On August 23, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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 cause of action as framed by the complaint, a defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to show “that one or more elements of the cause of action ... cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see also Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851; Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) 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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see also Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851.)

A plaintiff or cross-complainant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to show “that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shift to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

The party opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not simply “rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings” but must instead “set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (p)(1) & (p)(2). 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.)

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.)

Discussion

In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; assault; and battery.

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.)

The elements of a cause of action for assault are: “(1) defendant acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, or threatened to touch plaintiff in a harmful or offensive manner; (2) plaintiff reasonably believed [he] was about to be touched in a harmful or offensive manner or it reasonably appeared to plaintiff that defendant was about to carry out the threat; (3) plaintiff did not consent to defendant's conduct; (4) plaintiff was harmed; and (5) defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm.” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668–669.)

The elements of a cause of action for battery are: “(1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant's conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have been offended by the touching.” (Id. at p. 669.)

On August 12, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set Two). The following were deemed admitted by Plaintiff:

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that YOU have no physical damages from the INCIDENT. For the purpose of these requests, the terms “YOU” or “YOUR” refers to defendant Rogelio Magana Castillo. The term “INCIDENT” refers to the acts identified in YOUR complaint wherein YOU allege that BROOKS threw a glass at YOUR face from a distance of less than four feet. The term “BROOKS” refers to defendant Kimberly Brooks.

2. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that YOU have no emotional damages from the INCIDENT.

3. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that YOU have no mental damages from the INCIDENT.

4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that YOU have threatened bodily harm against BROOKS.

5. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that YOU have threatened monetary harm against BROOKS.

6. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that YOU have laundered money.

7. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that YOU stated to BROOKS that YOU have connections with a Mexican cartel/mafia.

8. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that YOU stated to BROOKS that YOU have contacts with a Mexican cartel/mafia.

9. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that YOU stated to BROOKS that YOU have previously bribed judges.

10. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that YOU have failed to comply with this Court’s August 14, 2023 Order to pay monetary sanctions to BROOKS.

11. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that YOU have failed to comply with this Court’s August 16, 2023 Order to pay monetary sanctions to BROOKS.

12. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that YOU have failed to comply with this Court’s August 18, 2023 Order to pay monetary sanctions to BROOKS.

13. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that YOU have failed to comply with this Court’s August 21, 2023 Order to pay monetary sanctions to BROOKS.

14. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that YOU have failed to comply with this Court’s January 17, 2024 Order to pay monetary sanctions to BROOKS.

15. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that YOU have failed to comply with this Court’s January 17, 2024 Order to produce all documents in YOUR possession responsive to Defendant’s Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 from Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Exh. A.)

The Court may take judicial notice of admissions that “contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court.” (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605.) Moreover, if a party does not move the trial court to allow for withdrawal or amendment of an admission, the admission is conclusively established against that party in the action. (See Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1489.)

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)

In this case, the facts that were deemed admitted by Plaintiff establish that Plaintiff did not sustain physical, emotional, or mental damages from the incident with Defendant. Thus, Defendant has met her initial burden on summary judgment of showing “that one or more elements of [each] cause of action ... cannot be established.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

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 the cause of action.” (Ibid.) Here, however, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise shown that there are triable issues on any of the causes of action in the complaint.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Kimberly Brooks.

Moving Party is to provide notice.