Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV23537, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV23537    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Chan v. Lyft, Inc.
22STCV23537
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

TENTATIVE

The hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Richard Darrell Jones is CONTINUED.

Background

On July 21, 2022, Lisa Chan and Kurt Selbach (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Richard Darrell Jones (“Jones”), and Jake Mungaray (“Mungaray”) for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence causes of action arising out of accident between Defendants in a car versus Plaintiffs on a tandem bicycle on November 13, 2021.

On September 12, 2022, Jones filed his answer and cross-complaint against Mungaray. On September 14, 2022, Lyft filed its answer. On October 7, 2022, Mungaray filed his answer and cross-complaint against Jones, which Jones answer on November 7, 2022.

On November 13, 2023, Jones filed a motion for summary judgment to Plaintiffs’ complaint. On September 4, 2024, Mungaray filed an opposition to Jones’ motion. Jones filed a reply on September 12, 2024.

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

Jones filed a Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on November 13, 2023. Within this notice, Jones states copies of the following exhibits were lodged with the Court:

-          Exhibit “A”: A true and correct copy of the Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs LISA CHAN and KURT SELBACH;

-          Exhibit “B”: A true and correct copy of Defendant RICHARD DARRELL JONES’ responses to Request for Admissions (Set One), propounded by Plaintiff LISA CHAN;

-          Exhibit “C”: A true and correct copy an excerpt from the deposition of Defendant RICHARD DARREL JONES 42:11-17;

-          Exhibit “D”: A true and correct copy an excerpt from the deposition of Defendant RICHARD DARREL JONES 37:9-14;

-          Exhibit “E”: A true and correct copy an excerpt from the deposition of Defendant RICHARD DARREL JONES 45:2-4;

-          Exhibit “F”: A true and correct copy of an excerpt from the deposition of Plaintiff KURT SELBACH 19:10-18;

-          Exhibit “G”: A true and correct copy of an excerpt from the deposition of Plaintiff KURT SELBACH 63:21-25 and 64:1-7;

-          Exhibit “H”: A true and correct copy of an excerpt from the deposition of Plaintiff KURT SELBACH 64:24-25 and 65:1-25.

Lodging exhibits is not the same as filing exhibits. Exhibits and other evidence offered in support of a motion must be filed and placed into the Court’s file. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1302.)

These exhibits need to be electronically filed with the Court.

Therefore, the Court CONTINUES the motion for summary judgment to allow Jones to file the lodged exhibits.

Conclusion

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to allow Defendant Richard Darrell Jones to file the lodged exhibits.

Moving Party is to give notice.