Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00974, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00974    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 1, 2023, plaintiff Eugene Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action or negligence, strict products liability, and breach of express and implied warranty. The action arises from a motor vehicle collision that took place on or about October 7, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges he suffered injuries to his head, back, and lower extremities when his vehicle rear-ended another vehicle that abruptly stopped on the freeway due to debris. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges these injuries were preventable and that the injuries resulted from his body striking the interior of the vehicle after the airbag failed to deploy. (Compl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

On April 5, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment. Defendant argues that the product at issue, a 2016 Kia Optima, did not have a defect that caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. (Motion, p. 2.)

Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on August 1, 2024.

Defendant filed a reply brief on August 9, 2024.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant moving for summary judgment “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).) 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 v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action, but it is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence. (Id. at p. 854; Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) 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.)

III.        EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Defendant’s Objections 1 through 3 are SUSTAINED. The website recall information and email between counsel is irrelevant and the report from the purported expert Felix Lee is not presented as a sworn affidavit or declaration.

IV.        DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that all of Plaintiff’s causes of action fail because Plaintiff cannot prove that the airbags in the 2016 Kia Optima were defective or that the alleged defects in the 2016 Kia Optima caused his injuries. (Demara v. The Raymond Corp. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 545, 553, citing Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 179; see also Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1373 (“A product liability case must be based on substantial evidence establishing both the defect and causation (a substantial probability that the design defect, and not something else, caused the plaintiff’s injury . . . “).)

However, many of Defendant’s material facts rely on evidence in exhibits contained in the Declaration of Dommond E. Lonnie (“Lonnie Declaration”), which has not been filed in the record. It appears from Defendant’s proof of service that Plaintiff was served with the Lonnie Declaration and the attached exhibits; therefore, notice does not appear to be at issue. Nevertheless, the more pressing point is that there is no admissible evidence supporting Defendant’s motion in the record. Instead, the only evidence which has been filed in support of Defendant’s motion is the expert declaration of Sarah Sharpe, Ph.D. However, Dr. Sharpe’s opinion is premised on facts derived from that evidence in the Lonnie Declaration that is not currently in the record. “Where an expert bases his conclusion upon assumptions which are not supported by the record, upon matters which are not reasonably relied upon by other experts, or upon factors which are speculative, remote or conjectural, then his conclusion has no evidentiary value. [Citations.] In those circumstances the expert's opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence.” (Borger v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1122 [citations omitted].) Accordingly, because Defendant’s motion is effectively unsupported by any admissible evidence, Defendant has not met its burden to show that Plaintiff cannot prevail on this action.  

Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing so that Defendant can file with the Court the Lonnie Declaration and the attached exhibits already served on Plaintiff. Defendant is ordered to file the missing declaration no later than 10 court days before the new hearing date. The Court is not inviting and will not consider any additional briefing

V.      CONCLUSION

          The hearing on this motion is continued to September 20, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse.  

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated this 16th day of August 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.