On 12/21/2017 CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MARTIN HERRERA ROSAS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
ROSAS MARTIN HERRERA
NIVINSKUS MARK ROBERT
8/9/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment
8/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice
8/9/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
8/9/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement
8/9/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF KRISTOPHER F. DAAMS
7/30/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
8/29/2018: Substitution of Attorney
11/29/2018: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to File First Amended General Denial in Answer to Complaint
5/9/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
12/21/2017: Summons - on Complaint
12/21/2017: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)
12/21/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
12/21/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 10/29/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration OF KRISTOPHER F. DAAMS; Filed by: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; Filed by: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 01/07/2020 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: California Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 07/17/2018; Service Cost: 69.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 77 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by: California Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: California Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Martin Herrera Rosas (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: California Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 17STLC05495 Hearing Date: October 29, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT
(CCP § 437c)
Defendant Martin Herrera Rosas’s Motion for Summary Judgement on the Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.
On December 21, 2017, Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) brought this subrogation action against Defendant Martin Herrera Rosas (“Defendant”) for causing a car accident and injuring its insured. (Compl.)
On August 9, 2019, Defendant brought the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on the Complaint (the “Motion”). Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion.
II. Legal Standard
“The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law . . . .” (CCP § 437c(c).) “A defendant’s motion for summary judgment asks the court to determine, as a matter of law, that the entire action has no merit. [Citation.] A cause of action ‘has no merit’ if one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be established or an affirmative defense to the cause of action can be established. [Citation.]” (Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1076, emphasis added.) “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)
In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, the court 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.) “To determine whether the parties have met their respective burdens, the court considers ‘all of the evidence set forth in the supporting and opposition papers, except that to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all uncontradicted inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence.’” (Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 71.)
A. Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit “E,” an order from the state court of Texas, is GRANTED.
Defendant claims that Ins. Code § 1063.2(c)(2) bars Plaintiff from maintaining the instant action. The statute states in pertinent part, “That claimant or the collision carrier, if it is a member of the association, does not have the right to sue or continue a suit against the insured of the insolvent insurance company for that collision damage.” (Ins. Code § 1063.2(c)(2), emphasis added.)
This action arose from a car accident that occurred on April 28, 2016 involving Plaintiff’s insured, Jose Ayala, and Defendant. (Compl.) Defendant submits his form interrogatories responses to demonstrate that at the time of the accident, his insurer was Access Insurance Company (“AIC”), which is supposedly insolvent. (Motion, Separate Statement Nos. 2-3, citing to Exhs. C-D.) The Court, however, cannot consider this evidence. “At the trial or any other hearing in the action, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, the propounding party or any party other than the responding party may use any answer or part of an answer to an interrogatory only against the responding party.” (CCP § 2030.410.) Thus, only Plaintiff or another who is not Defendant may use Defendant’s form interrogatories responses as evidence. (Great American Ins. Cos. v. Gordon Trucking, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 445, 450 [“[T]he responding party may not use its own interrogatory responses in its own favor.”].) For this reason, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that AIC was its insurer in order to invoke Ins. Code § 1063.2(c)(2) and, therefore, has failed to meet his burden.
“‘If the defendant fails to meet this initial burden, it is unnecessary to examine the plaintiff’s opposing evidence; the motion must be denied.’ [Citation.]” (Orange County Water Dist. v. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 343, 367, emphasis added.) Accordingly, the Court must deny the Motion.
IV. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. The Court, however, is open to continuing the Motion upon Defendant’s request so he could file supplemental evidence in support of the Motion.
Moving Party is to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.