This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 03:40:06 (UTC).

JAMES SAVITS ET AL VS OSCAR SOLIS ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/05/2017 JAMES SAVITS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against OSCAR SOLIS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5680

  • Filing Date:

    01/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

SAVITS JAMES

BARON-SAVITZ DIANE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

SOLIS OSCAR

DOES 1 TO 100

VALENTINE JANINE

VALENTINE ROBERT

SOLIS MIRNA ARACELY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

STANLEY MARTIN L. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

11/19/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

11/8/2018: Minute Order

Order

11/8/2018: Order

Ex Parte Application

11/8/2018: Ex Parte Application

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/02/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/19/2018
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Oscar Solis (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketOrder (On Ex Parte)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketEx Parte Application (To Continue Trial); Filed by Oscar Solis (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Oscar Solis (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO CROSS COMPLAINT OF JANINE VALENTINE AND ROBERT VALENTINE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Oscar Solis (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by James Savits (Plaintiff); Diane Baron-Savitz (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by James Savits (Plaintiff); Diane Baron-Savitz (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by James Savits (Plaintiff); Diane Baron-Savitz (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by James Savits (Plaintiff); Diane Baron-Savitz (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by James Savits (Plaintiff); Diane Baron-Savitz (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5680    Hearing Date: December 28, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

james Savits, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

oscar solis, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****5680

Hearing Date: December 21, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motion for summary adjudication

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs James Savits and Diane Baron-Savits (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Oscar Humberto Solis (“Defendant”), among others, following a motor vehicle collision. Now, Defendant moves for summary adjudication, arguing that there is insufficient evidence that he negligently entrusted the vehicle to Mirna Miguel. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ theory against Defendant is that he negligently entrusted the vehicle at issue to the driver involved in the collision, Mirna Miguel. To state a cause of action for negligent entrustment, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) Miguel negligently operated a vehicle owned by Defendant; (2) Defendant knew or should have known that Miguel was incompetent or unfit to drive; (3) Defendant permitted Miguel to use that vehicle; and (4) Miguel’s incompetence or unfitness harmed Plaintiff. (Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 853, 863-864.)

Plaintiffs allege that the accident occurred on September 15, 2015. Defendant relies on his own deposition testimony. Specifically, he testified that he has been separated from Miguel since 2009. (Declaration of Tina M. Bhatia, Exhibit A, p. 19.) Defendant testified that he did not give Miguel permission to use the vehicle and did not even know she had taken the vehicle until after the accident. (Ibid.)

Defendant also relies on a declaration from Defendant’s son, Oscar W. Solis. Defendant’s son states that he, and his Defendant, gave Mirna Miguel permission to use the vehicle at issue, and that he never told Defendant about it until after the accident. (Declaration of Oscar W. Solis, ¶¶ 5, 7.) Finally, Defendant relies on a declaration from Mirna Miguel, which states that she drove the vehicle with permission from her son. (Declaration of Mirna Aracely Miguel, ¶ 5.)

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant has satisfied his burden of showing that he did not entrust the vehicle to Defendant, shifting the burden to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that the declaration of Solis and Miguel are speculative. The Court disagrees. Each witness can testify to the information discussed above. Plaintiffs also argue that entrustment is implied based upon this record. Again, the Court disagrees. If the Court adopted Plaintiffs’ argument, it would effectively eliminate the element that a defendant gave permission to the driver and would effectively impose strict liability on the owner of a vehicle. That is not the law. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Court cannot resolve this issue on summary adjudication. Plaintiffs are incorrect. Absent evidence of a triable issue on the element of permission, the entire case against Defendant fails.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 21, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****5680    Hearing Date: December 21, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

james Savits, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

oscar solis, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****5680

Hearing Date: December 21, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motion for summary adjudication

NOTICE

Department #32 will be dark for motions.  The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at SSCDept32@lacourt.org to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing.  If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.  If the parties do not email the Court’s clerk before the hearing time to request a hearing, they will waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order, which shall issue.

TENTATIVE ORDER

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs James Savits and Diane Baron-Savits (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Oscar Humberto Solis (“Defendant”), among others, following a motor vehicle collision. Now, Defendant moves for summary adjudication, arguing that there is insufficient evidence that he negligently entrusted the vehicle to Mirna Miguel. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ theory against Defendant is that he negligently entrusted the vehicle at issue to the driver involved in the collision, Mirna Miguel. To state a cause of action for negligent entrustment, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) Miguel negligently operated a vehicle owned by Defendant; (2) Defendant knew or should have known that Miguel was incompetent or unfit to drive; (3) Defendant permitted Miguel to use that vehicle; and (4) Miguel’s incompetence or unfitness harmed Plaintiff. (Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 853, 863-864.)

Plaintiffs allege that the accident occurred on September 15, 2015. Defendant relies on his own deposition testimony. Specifically, he testified that he has been separated from Miguel since 2009. (Declaration of Tina M. Bhatia, Exhibit A, p. 19.) Defendant testified that he did not give Miguel permission to use the vehicle and did not even know she had taken the vehicle until after the accident. (Ibid.)

Defendant also relies on a declaration from Defendant’s son, Oscar W. Solis. Defendant’s son states that he, and his Defendant, gave Mirna Miguel permission to use the vehicle at issue, and that he never told Defendant about it until after the accident. (Declaration of Oscar W. Solis, ¶¶ 5, 7.) Finally, Defendant relies on a declaration from Mirna Miguel, which states that she drove the vehicle with permission from her son. (Declaration of Mirna Aracely Miguel, ¶ 5.)

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant has satisfied his burden of showing that he did not entrust the vehicle to Defendant, shifting the burden to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that the declaration of Solis and Miguel are speculative. The Court disagrees. Each witness can testify to the information discussed above. Plaintiffs also argue that entrustment is implied based upon this record. Again, the Court disagrees. If the Court adopted Plaintiffs’ argument, it would effectively eliminate the element that a defendant gave permission to the driver and would effectively impose strict liability on the owner of a vehicle. That is not the law. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Court cannot resolve this issue on summary adjudication. Plaintiffs are incorrect. Absent evidence of a triable issue on the element of permission, the entire case against Defendant fails.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 21, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer STANLEY MARTIN L. ESQ.