Judge: William Y. Wood, Case: 37-2023-00012014-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:William Y Wood

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2023-00012014-CU-PA-NC ZAMORA VS. ESPINOZA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 04/11/2024

Plaintiff Gabriel Zamora's motion for summary judgment (ROA # 37) is denied.

On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting three negligence causes of action (motor vehicle, negligence per se and res ipsa loquitor). ROA # 1.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication of the claims presented in the complaint.

In analyzing motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party showed facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing party demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83.

In ruling on a summary judgment motion/ summary adjudication, the court must 'liberally construe' the opposing party's evidence and 'strictly scrutinize' the moving party's evidence, and 'resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities' in favor of the opposing party. McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 96 – 97. Similarly, 'any doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.' Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 535.

Where plaintiff seeks summary judgment, the burden is to produce admissible evidence on each element of a 'cause of action' entitling him or her to judgment. CCP § 437c(p)(1); see Hunter v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1287 (citing text) (disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.

Applying the first step of the analysis, the issues framed by the pleadings are as follows: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant [Jose Luis Alvarado Espinoza] drove his 2021 FORD SUV recklessly, too fast for conditions in violation of Vehicle Code Section 22350, resulting in a 'T-Bone Collision' with the front driver's side door of a 2007 Blue Ford F-150, owned and operated by Plaintiff, while Plaintiff was backing into a residential driveway. Complaint (ROA # 1), p. 5. Plaintiff further alleges that he suffered personal injuries including, but not limited to, injury to Plaintiff's hand, arm, back, and neck such that Plaintiff is unable to perform tasks necessary in his construction business and he is unable to perform ordinary tasks requiring raising his arms in addition to pain while sleeping and mental anguish. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he did not contribute to his own injuries and exercised due care while backing into the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3114236 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ZAMORA VS. ESPINOZA [IMAGED]  37-2023-00012014-CU-PA-NC driveway. Id. at p. 6.

Applying the second step of the analysis, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff met his burden of producing admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action entitling him to judgment.

As to the negligence cause of action, Plaintiff has failed to produce admissible evidence establishing that he sustained damages as the result of Defendant's purported conduct and the amount of those damages. See Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SSUMF) (ROA # 38), Nos. 1-21.

As to the negligence per se cause of action, Plaintiff has failed to produce admissible evidence establishing the ordinance purportedly violated by the Defendant, that the ordinance was designed to prevent the nature and occurrence of injury, that the Plaintiff was one of the class of persons for whose protection the ordinance was adopted. See Capolungo v. Bondi (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 346, 349 ['In order for a claim of negligence per se to succeed, all four elements must be met.']. Further, Plaintiff has failed to present admissible evidence relating to damages under this theory. See SSUMF, Nos. 22-25.

As to the res ipsa loquitor cause of action, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence establishing that Defendant owed a duty to the Plaintiff or that the accident was not due to any action by Plaintiff. See SSUMF, Nos. 15-21 and 26-31; see also Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 493, 517.

For these reasons, the burden never shifts to the Defendant to present evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact.

This minute order constitutes the Court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance (in person or remote) hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, June 28, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of June 28, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the Court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3114236