On 02/22/2016 DAVID WEI LIN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DEYUN SHI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM D. STEWART and STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
WILLIAM D. STEWART
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
LIN DAVID WEI
HUANG VICKI WEINCHIH
DOES 1 - 5
CALIFORNIA VICTIM COMPENSATION BOARD
TSAI ROSE W. ESQ.
TSAI ROSE WEN-HUEI ESQ.
CHANG GRACE LEA
GREENHALGH BARRY LYNN ESQ
DELAINI LARENDA RAI
6/5/2019: Motion for Stay of Proceedings
6/27/2019: Case Management Statement
7/3/2019: Case Management Statement
1/29/2018: Minute Order
1/29/2018: STATUS REPORT
1/31/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
2/20/2018: STATUS REPORT
7/26/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 631
2/7/2019: Notice of Ruling
3/8/2019: Amended Complaint
4/2/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)
8/7/2017: Minute Order
Case Management Statement; Filed by Vicki Weinchih Huang (Plaintiff); David Wei Lin (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Yujing Lin (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Yujing Lin (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
at 2:18 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Deyun shi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Lien; Filed by California Victim Compensation Board (Non-Party)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Stay of Proceedings; Filed by Yujing Lin (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 97; (Trial; Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2017-08-22 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 97; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2017-08-07 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint; Filed by David Wei Lin (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by David Wei Lin (Plaintiff); Vicki Weinchih Huang (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATHRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC611026 Hearing Date: March 26, 2021 Dept: A
Motion for Summary Judgment
March 26, 2021
February 22, 2016
Defendant Yujing Lin
Plaintiffs David Wei Lin; Vicki Wenchih Huang (no opposition)
The instant action arises from the alleged murder of Decedents William Davidson Lin and Anthony Davidson Lin (the “Decedents”), the minor children of Plaintiffs David Wei Lin and Vicki Wenchih Huang (“Plaintiffs”) by Defendant Deyun Shi (“Shi”) on or about January 22, 2016. Plaintiffs allege that Yujing Lin ("Yujing") was married to but planned to divorce Shi at the time of the incident, and sought to personally control the entire martial estate. Plaintiffs allege that Yujing was aware of Shi's capability and propensity to harm or murder anyone who interfered with their marriage and so facilitated circumstances inciting Shi to commit a serious crime, resulting in Shi's murder of the Decedents.
Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on March 08, 2019 and allege a single cause of action for Wrongful Death but appear to predicate the tort underlying the cause of action on different bases for the two different Defendants. For Shi, Plaintiffs allege it on the wrongful act of murder, while the predicate wrongful act for Defendant Yujing Lin (“Yujing”) appears to sound in a negligent/intentional failure to warn theory.
The instant Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant was received by the Court on December 20, 2019. No opposition or reply has been received by the Court.
Yujing moves for an order granting summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to the SAC.
Standard of Review – Summary Judgment – A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (a).) To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (c).) In other words, the opposing party cannot present contrary admissible evidence to raise a triable factual dispute.
“A defendant or cross-defendant 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, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the 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 or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)
When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court must consider all inferences from the evidence, even those contradicted by the moving party’s evidence. The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 833, 841.) In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, "the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 171, 179.)
With a summary judgment motion, a three-step analysis is required of the trial court. (AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker Nat’l Bank (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 1061, 1064–65.) First, the trial court must identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. (Ibid.) Secondly, the court must determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in movant’s favor. (Ibid.) When a summary judgment motion prima facie justifies a judgment, the third and final step is to determine whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material factual issue. (Ibid.) On a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that each element of the cause of action in question has been proved, and that there is no defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)
Merits – Wrongful Death – The elements of a cause of action for wrongful death are the tort (negligence or other wrongful act), the resulting death, and the damages, consisting of the pecuniary loss suffered by the heirs. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1263.)
To plead a cause of action for negligence, one must allege (1) a legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 318.) “In order to state a cause of action for negligence, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to show a legal duty on the part of the defendant to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” (Bellah v. Greenson (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 614, 619.)
“[T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Lovejoy v. AT&T (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-58) (citing Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612–613.)
Yujing argues that Plaintiffs cannot show Yujing owed a duty to Plaintiffs to prevent or warn of Shi's actions. Yujing argues that (1) a defendant is only liable for failing to control the conduct or failing to warn of the conduct of another if the defendant and the dangerous person, or the defendant and the potential victim, are in a special relationship, and that Yujing does not have a special relationship with either Shi or Plaintiffs; (2) Yujing did not have a duty to prevent or warn of Shi's actions as a matter of law because Shi's actions were unforeseeable; and (3) Yujing did not have a duty as a matter of law because she had no ability to control Shi's actions. Yujing further argues that Plaintiffs cannot show that Yujing's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' injuries.
The motion is unopposed.
The SAC appears to allege a cause of action for wrongful death against Yujing predicated on negligence and the intentional failure to warn tort. The Court finds that Yujing satisfies the prima facie burden to show that she had no duty under a negligence theory to use due care to prevent Shi's actions, and that she had no duty under an intentional failure to warn theory to warn Plaintiffs of Shi's actions, due to the unforeseeability of Shi's actions. "In order for there to be a duty to prevent third party criminal conduct, that conduct must be foreseeable." (Margaret W. v. Kelley R. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 141, 152.) Yujing attests through declaration that she had no knowledge that Shi would attack Decedents, and that she further did not direct, encourage, or suggest that Shi harm Decedents. (Decl. Yujing, ¶¶ 13-14.) Yujing thus also satisfies the moving party's burden to show that that an element of the wrongful death claim cannot be established.
In light of Plaintiffs' non-opposition, no evidence is raised to satisfy Plaintiffs' subsequent burden to show that a triable, material issue exists as to the duty element of either the negligence or the intentional failure to warn tort underlying the wrongful death claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment.
In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.
Defendant Yujing Lin's Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on March 26, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED.
DATE: _______________ _______________________________
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases