This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/11/2020 at 17:43:09 (UTC).

DA YE VS AHZW INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/03/2018 DA YE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against AHZW INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0215

  • Filing Date:

    04/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

YE DA

DE OZARK GROUP INC

DE BOISE GROUP INC

ELK TRUCKING INC

DE MORGAN INC

LIANG HONG

ECHO LINUX INC

HAN JIANWEI

LI YUXUAN

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 TO 10

DE OZARK GROUP INC

DE BOISE GROUP INC

ELK TRUCKING INC

DE MORGAN INC

LIANG HONG

LUO HAO

ECHO LINUX INC

A.H.Z.W. INC

HAN JIANWEI

LI YUXUAN

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

A.H.Z.W. INC

9 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MITCHELL G.SETH ESQ

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

KANDARIAN-STEIN GINA YVONNE

LAMOND CHRISTIAN F

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL...)

8/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL...)

Notice of Ruling

1/14/2020: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES

1/10/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES

Answer

12/31/2019: Answer

Notice of Ruling

12/19/2019: Notice of Ruling

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE , MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

12/12/2019: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE , MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Separate Statement

12/3/2019: Separate Statement

Request for Judicial Notice

8/13/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Separate Statement

8/13/2019: Separate Statement

Proof of Personal Service

12/3/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

12/3/2018: Proof of Personal Service

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -

6/6/2018: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

5/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

5/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

5/29/2018: DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

4/12/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

NON SERVICE REPORT

4/13/2018: NON SERVICE REPORT

44 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2021
  • Hearing05/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2021
  • Hearing05/14/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Request For Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Request For Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an Order Continuing Trial and All Trial-Related Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing Trial...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Hong Liang (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (for an Order Continuing Trial and All Trial-Related Dates); Filed by Hong Liang (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
72 More Docket Entries
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Da Ye (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by 1st Class Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by Da Ye (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • DocketNON SERVICE REPORT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Da Ye (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Da Ye (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700215    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DA YE,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

A.Z.H.W., INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC700215

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

December 17, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Da Ye filed this action against Defendants, A.H.Z.W., Inc., De Boise Group, Inc., De Ozark Group, Inc., De Morgan, Inc., Elk Trucking, Inc., Echo Linux, Inc., Hao Luo, Yuzuan Li, Jianwei Han, and Hong Liang for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff alleges he was a passenger in a freight truck driven by Liang when the freight truck tipped over, causing him to sustain injuries. Plaintiff alleges the remaining defendants owned the freight truck, entrusted the freight truck to Liang, and/or employed Liang at the time of the accident.

2. Motion for Summary Judgment

a. Relief Sought

At this time, AZHW and Luo move for summary judgment on the complaint, contending Plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident, such that workers’ compensation is his exclusive remedy. In the alternative, they seek adjudication of the issue that their liability to Plaintiff is limited to $15,000 as the owner of the vehicle Liang was driving at the time of the accident.

b. Burdens on Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper “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 judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c).) Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “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 that cause of action.” (Id. at §437c(o)(2).) A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.) Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A defendant moving for summary judgment 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. (Id. at §437c(p).) A defendant may discharge this burden by furnishing either (1) affirmative evidence of the required facts or (2) discovery responses conceding that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish an essential element of the plaintiff's case. If a defendant chooses the latter option he or she must present evidence “and not simply point out that plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence….” Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 865-66,

[A] defendant may simply show the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action “by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Id. at p. 854.) Thus, rather than affirmatively disproving or negating an element (e.g., causation), a defendant moving for summary judgment has the option of presenting evidence reflecting the plaintiff does not possess evidence to prove that element. “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing” to support an essential element of his case. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 855.) Under the latter approach, a defendant's initial evidentiary showing may “consist of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses, or admissions by the plaintiff in deposition or in response to requests for admission that he or she has not discovered anything that supports an essential element of the cause of action.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) In other words, a defendant may show the plaintiff does not possess evidence to support an element of the cause of action by means of presenting the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses from which an absence of evidence may be reasonably inferred. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.)

Thus, a moving defendant has two means by which to shift the burden of proof under the summary judgment statute: “The defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon. [Citation.] [Or a]lternatively, the defendant may utilize the tried and true technique of negating (‘disproving’) an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” (Brantly v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598.)

Leyva v. Garcia (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1095, 1103.

Until the moving defendant has discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come forward with any evidence. Once the moving defendant has discharged its burden as to a particular cause of action, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action. (Id. at §437c(p)(2).) On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's supporting documents are strictly construed and those of his opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21.)

c. Workers’ Compensation

Moving Defendants’ primary argument is that Plaintiff was employed by De Boise Group, Inc. at the time of the accident, and was in the course and scope of his employment, such that the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine applies to the action. The motion on this ground is confusing. Plaintiff’s allegation is that Defendants, and each of them, employed Liang, owned the truck Liang drove, and/or entrusted the truck Liang was driving to Liang.

In order to show they are entitled to the workers’ compensation exclusivity defense, Defendants must show that they employed both Liang and Plaintiff. They do not attempt to do so. Indeed, they expressly disavow employing Plaintiff. They make no showing at all, one way or another, concerning any relationship with Liang.

Notably, it is entirely possible Moving Defendants did not employ Liang and/or Plaintiff, but did own and/or entrust the truck that Liang was driving. Moving Defendants make no attempt to show that they did not own and/or entrust the truck. Thus, they failed to meet their moving burden to show they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on a workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine defense, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

d. Summary Adjudication

Defendants alternatively seek summary adjudication of the issue that their liability to Plaintiff is limited to, at most, $15,000 as the owners of the vehicle at issue. CCP §437c(f) permits the Court to grant summary adjudication if the motion “completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” Defendants fail to show the requested relief would fall into any of these categories. Additionally, the notice of motion and separate statement fail to comply with CRC 3.1350(b), (d), and (h), which govern the requirements for seeking summary adjudication. The alternative motion for summary adjudication is therefore denied.

e. Conclusion

The motion for summary judgment is denied due to failure to meet the moving burden to show all claims against Moving Defendants are barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine.

The alternative motion for summary adjudication is denied due to the failure to show the relief sought is permitted under the statute, and also for failure to follow the procedural requirements attendant to a motion for summary adjudication.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.