Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV39585, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39585    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2019, plaintiffs Darcy Perez (“Plaintiff”) and Mario Andrade (“Andrade”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Deborah Jean Dix (“Defendant”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiffs allege that on November 8, 2017, they were involved in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant while Defendant was employed by Uber. 

On August 3, 2020, Defendant answered the Complaint. 

On August 18, 2022, with leave of Court, Defendant filed a First Amended Answer (“FAA”).

On August 19, 2022, Defendant filed this unopposed motion for summary judgment on the grounds that a settlement and release agreement has already been executed between Defendant and Plaintiff. 

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed substitutions of attorney stating that they would be self-represented.  They did not file an opposition.

On November 4, 2022, the Court continued the hearing so that Defendant could submit additional briefing and evidence.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown 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).)  “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).)  The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.”  (Ibid.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant explains that Plaintiff, who filed this Complaint using the name “Darcy Perez”, is actually referred to in her medical records, demand letter, settlement check, and retainer letter as “Dorcy Perez.”  (Rabi Decl., Ex. B; Dordulian Decl., Exs. A-D.)  Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff already signed a general release of all claims relating to the November 8, 2017, motor vehicle collision underlying this action. 

An attorney from Dordulian Law Group, Sam Dordulian (“Dordulian”), declares that his former associate, Arpineh Yeremian, was assigned to represent Plaintiff, then identified and addressed as “Dorcy Perez” in relation to her November 8, 2017, accident.  (Dordulian Decl., ¶ 2.)  He authenticates and attaches correspondence and a release agreement signed on September 6, 2018.  (Dordulian Decl., ¶¶ 2-6, Exs. A-D.)  A check was issued to Dordulian’s office and subsequently deposited on October 10, 2018.  

Based on the evidence submitted, the Court finds that Defendant has made a prima facie showing that Plaintiff’s action is barred by a previous settlement.  Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.  Therefore, Plaintiff did not meet her burden to show that a triable issue of material fact exists.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          Accordingly, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.