Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV28384, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV28384 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: 29
Tentative
The motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED.
Background
On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff Edvin Asatori (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Defendant Steven Perez (“Defendant”) alleging causes
of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence. The complaint
arises from an automobile collision which allegedly occurred on August 17,
2019.
On September 6, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion
for summary judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed.
“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
Defendant moves for summary
judgment on the two causes of action of Motor Vehicle Negligence and General
Negligence on the grounds that there are no disputed issues of material fact.
Specifically, Defendant points to the Requests for Admission which were deemed
admitted against Plaintiff, on May 24, 2023. Based upon the Court’s Order on
May 24, 2023, it is admitted that:
·
Defendant is not at fault for any alleged
injuries sustained by Plaintiff resulting from the subject accident. [UMF No.
6.]
·
Plaintiff suffered no injuries or
disabilities due to the subject accident. [UMF No. 7.]
·
Plaintiff has no ongoing pain or present
physical limitation resulting from any injury sustained due to the subject accident
and needs no future medical care. [UMF No. 8.]
·
Plaintiff suffered no injury to cause loss of
wages, income or impairment of earning capacity due to the subject accident.
[UMF No. 9.]
·
Plaintiff has paid nothing out of pocket for
medical treatment due to the subject accident. [UMF No. 10.]
Defendant argues these admissions
are fatal to Plaintiff’s claims against him, and Plaintiff is precluded from
introducing any evidence in contravention of the admissions such that both
causes of action fail as a matter of law.
Plaintiff
provides no arguments in opposition.
Defendant has met his initial burden of showing
that the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages in Plaintiff’s claims
cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 437c, subd. (p)(2).) This shifts the
burden to Plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts
exists. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has not done so.
Defendant has
shown that there is
no triable issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Accordingly, his motion
for summary judgment is granted.
Conclusion
The
Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.