Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2021-01233673, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

The motion by defendant, Daniel Yee Hsu, D.D.S., M.D., for summary judgment is GRANTED.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c [authorizing motion].)

Moving party has met his initial burden of presenting evidence sufficient to show that plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of breach of duty or causation.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2) [burden]; Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606 [elements; expert opinion required]; Moving Party Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Fact Nos. 40-43, 59, 60, 62-64, 67-71 [negating breach], and Fact Nos. 61, 72, 74, 76, 77 [negating causation].)

Moving party has also met his initial burden of presenting evidence sufficient to show that plaintiff cannot establish any of the other theories of vicarious liability alleged in the Complaint.  (Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 587, 593 [“A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a factual showing negating the existence of all causes of action on all theories embodied in the complaint”]; Garlock Sealing Techs., LLC v. NAK Sealing Techs. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 964 [agency elements]; Vernon v. State of California (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 126 [of the factors that may be considered when determining whether an employer/employee relationship exists, “the extent of the defendant's right to control the means and manner of the workers' performance is the most important”]; Eng v. Brown (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 675, 694 [partnership elements]; Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1053 [joint venture elements]; Moving Party Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Fact Nos. 81-90, 93, 95, 96, 98.)

There is no Opposition and no evidence indicating the existence of any triable issues of material fact.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2) [burden].)  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.