Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV04687, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV04687 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
INTRODUCTION
On February 5, 2020, Plaintiffs Margaret Garcia Ortigoza, individually and as surviving parent of Jeannie C. Montoya, Deceased; Christina Rose Reyes, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Robert Reyes; Robert Junior Reyes, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Robert Reyes; and Joey Guadalupe Reyes, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Robert Reyes (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants WCL Trucking Corp. and Victor M. Pedroza (“Pedroza”) (collectively “Defendants”) for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence. Plaintiffs also named Aleena J. Montoya, Karina P. Reyes, and Anaisse Montoya as nominal defendants.
On September 15, 2021, and September 16, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs and indicated the orders were effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed orders upon Plaintiffs. Counsel did not file the proofs of service until December 1, 2021.
On February 10, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for an order deeming matters admitted.
On February 28, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. No opposition has been filed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about February 5, 2018, Jeannie C. Montoya (“Decedent”) was a pedestrian near 901 East E. Street & McFarland Avenue in the city of Wilmington, California, when a semi-truck owned by Defendant WCL Trucking Corp. and driven by Defendant Pedroza failed to notice Decedent and violently struck her, resulting in fatal injuries to Decedent. (Complaint, GN-1.) As a result of Defendants’ negligence and Decedent’s death, Plaintiffs suffered damages. (Id.)
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 facia 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).) A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)
To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence. (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.” (Ibid.) The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)
“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.)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendants request judicial notice of (1) Plaintiffs’ complaint, (2) Defendants’ answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint, (3) Defendants’ motion for an order to deem matters admitted in Defendants’ requests for admission set one, and (4) the Court’s tentative ruling granting Defendants’ motion to deem matters admitted, which became the final ruling.
The court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Defendants’ request for judicial notice is thus unnecessary and the Court declines to rule on the request.
DISCUSSION
Defendants move for summary judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs on the general negligence and motor vehicle negligence causes of action asserted against them in Plaintiffs’ complaint.
The elements of negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)
To demonstrate Plaintiffs cannot establish their negligence or motor vehicle negligence claims against them, Defendants rely on Plaintiffs’ admissions pursuant to the Court’s order deeming Defendants’ requests for admissions admitted against Plaintiffs. Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admissions, unless the court has permitted withdrawal or amendment of the admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410, subd. (a); Murillo v. Sup. Ct. (People) (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.)
Pursuant to the court order deeming the requests for admissions admitted, Plaintiffs have admitted that Defendants WCL Trucking Corp. and Pedroza were “in no way negligent with respect to the alleged incident of February 5, 2018 giving rise to this litigation”; that Defendants were “in no way at fault for the alleged incident of February 5, 2018 giving rise to this litigation”; that Defendants “did not owe [Plaintiffs] any duty of care in connection with the alleged incident of February 5, 2018 that is the subject of this litigation”; that Defendants “did not breach any duty of care owed to [Plaintiffs] in connection with the alleged incident of February 5, 2018 that is the subject of this lawsuit”; that Defendants “did not cause [Plaintiffs] any damages in connection with the alleged incident of February 5, 2018 that is the subject of this lawsuit”; and that Plaintiffs were not injured nor sustained any damages as a result of the alleged incident. (Defendants’ Compendium of Evidence, Ex. 3.C, Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set One, to Plaintiff Christina Rose Reyes, Request for Admissions (“RFA”) Nos. 1-12; id., Ex. 3.C, Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set One, to Plaintiff Joey Guadalupe Reyes, RFA Nos. 1-12; id., Ex. 3.C, Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set One, to Plaintiff Margaret Garcia Ortigoza, RFA Nos. 1-12; id., Ex. 3.C, Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set One, to Plaintiff Robert Junior Reyes, RFA Nos. 1-12; id., Ex. 4.) Based on these admissions, Plaintiffs cannot establish their general negligence and motor vehicle negligence claims against Defendants. Defendants have thus met their burden.
As Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating triable issues of material fact exist as to their general negligence and motor vehicle negligence claims.
Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
VI. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, 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.