LOURDES VALLADARES VS GEICO INSURANCE

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06006    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., August 26, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Valladares v. GEICO Insurance COMPL. FILED: 06-27-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC06006 DISC. C/O: 08-12-20

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(2) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company, erroneously sued as GEICO Insurance

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, COMPEL DISCOVERY, COMPEL DEPOSITION, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CRC 3.1332; CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Having granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates, to Compel Responses to Discovery, to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition, and Request for Sanctions is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff Lourdes Valladares (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company, erroneously sued as GEICO Insurance (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on September 27, 2019.

On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to return her vehicle, requesting that the Court order Plaintiff’s vehicle released from the body shop where it was held until her dispute with Defendant was settled. (7/2/19 Motion to Return Vehicle.) However, on October 16, 2019, the Court denied that motion because Plaintiff provided no authority demonstrating the Court could issue such an order. (10/16/19 Minute Order.) The Court also advanced the trial date from December 24, 2020 to April 22, 2020. (Id.) On December 17, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the trial date from April 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020. (12/17/19 Minute Order.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (the “Motion”) on March 25, 2020. In addition, on June 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates, Compel Responses to Discovery, Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition, and Request for Sanctions.

To date, Plaintiff has not opposed either of Defendant’s Motions.

1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

B. Discussion

Defendant moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s motor vehicle negligence cause of action. (Mot., p. 3:25-26.) Notably, Plaintiff’s form Complaint does not include any allegations or the required motor vehicle negligence cause of action attachment. (See Compl.) “The elements of any negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. [Citation.]” (Pereida v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) Defendant argues Plaintiff’s cause of action fails because it was not involved in any motor vehicle accident with Plaintiff. (Mot., p. 3:25-26.)

Defendant presents the following undisputed material facts:

Defendant issued Plaintiff an automobile policy that was in effect on December 30, 2018 for a 2016 Honda HR-V (the “Honda”). (UMF No. 1.) On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff submitted an auto insurance claim to Defendant for an accident that occurred on December 30, 2018 involving the Honda (the “Accident”). (UMF Nos. 3, 5, 6.) Plaintiff reported that when she slowed down to avoid hitting a coyote on the road, an unidentified vehicle hit her from behind, causing her to lose control of the Honda and to hit a rock. (UMF Nos. 5, 6.) Defendant obtained a copy of the report prepared by the paramedics who responded to the scene, which does not reference a hit and run incident. (UMF No. 4.) Defendant’s Special Investigations Unit Investigator Nolan Walker (“Mr. Walker”) was assigned to further investigate Plaintiff’s claim. (UMF No. 8.) After reviewing pictures demonstrating the Honda had preexisting damage to her vehicle, obtaining a recorded statement from Plaintiff, and downloading the Honda’s event data, Mr. Walker concluded the evidence was inconsistent with being impacted from behind by another vehicle. (UMF Nos. 8, 9, 11.) Defendant also retained Collision Dynamics, an accredited accident reconstructionist, to further investigate Plaintiff’s claims. (UMF No. 12.) Collision Dynamics concluded that the physical evidence did not support Plaintiff’s claims that her Honda was hit from behind as she alleged. (UMF No. 13.) On April 11, 2019, Defendant retained the Coleman Law Group to conduct an examination of Plaintiff under oath. (UMF No. 14.) Defendant submits the transcript of this examination in support of its separate statement. (Mot., McCurdy Decl., ¶ 14, Exh. C.) However, the transcript is not bracketed, and the deposition citations do match the quoted language. (Id.; UMF Nos. 16-18.) Thus, the Court does not consider this evidence.

However, Defendant’s other evidence demonstrates it was not involved in a motor vehicle accident with Plaintiff, and that it was merely Plaintiff’s insurer during the Accident that occurred on December 30, 2018. Thus, Defendant has carried its burden to establish that no triable issue of material fact exists as to the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact. As the Motion is unopposed, Plaintiff has not carried her burden.

To the extent Defendant also seeks summary judgment or adjudication as to a potential breach of contract and insurance bad faith cause of action, the Court declines to make a ruling. (See Mot., p. 4:2-18.) Plaintiff’s Complaint does not make any reference to a breach of contract or bad faith cause of action.

1. Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial, to Compel Responses to Discovery, to Compel Deposition, and Request for Sanctions

First, the Court notes that Defendant impermissibly attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. Specifically, Defendant moves the Court for an order to continue trial, to compel Plaintiff’s responses to two sets of form interrogatories, one set of special interrogatories, and one set of requests for production of documents, to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, and for sanctions. However, filing as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. In addition, combining motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Defendant has only paid one filing fee for what should have been six separate motions.

However, having granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the June 2^nd combined motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Having granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates, to Compel Responses to Discovery, to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition, and Request for Sanctions is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.