This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/03/2021 at 05:51:50 (UTC).

JULIO A BLAS VS VIDEN W PALUCHO ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/05/2017 JULIO A BLAS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VIDEN W PALUCHO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8473

  • Filing Date:

    10/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

BLAS JULIO A.

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 TO 20

CARRILLO ISRAEL

PALUCHO VIDEN W.

R.C. TRUCKING LLC (DOE 1)

R.C. TRUCKING LLC DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MAURO FIORE JR

JR MAURO FIORE

FIORE MAURO FIORE JR.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

MUENCH RICHARD A. ESQ.

MUENCH RICHARD ARTHUR ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

9/5/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION OF ATTORNEY MAURO FIORE, JR./LAW OFFICES OF...)

9/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION OF ATTORNEY MAURO FIORE, JR./LAW OFFICES OF...)

Proof of Service by Mail

9/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/24/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service by Mail

9/24/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FSC, ...)

9/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FSC, ...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FSC, TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES

9/26/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FSC, TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES

Notice of Ruling

9/26/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment

10/11/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

10/11/2019: Separate Statement

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

10/11/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Request for Judicial Notice

10/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

1/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Notice of Ruling

1/6/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

1/9/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice of Ruling

2/21/2020: Notice of Ruling

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

4/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/05/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReSubmittal of Proposed Summary Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Entry of Order - MSJ); Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/18/2020
  • DocketJudgment ((PROPOSED) JUDGMENT); Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReSubmittal of Proposed Summary Judgment) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • Docketat 3:14 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/16/2020); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReSubmittal of Proposed Summary Judgment) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
53 More Docket Entries
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANTS' VIDEN U. PALUCHO AND ISRAEL CARRILLO ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JULIO A. BLAS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8473    Hearing Date: January 02, 2020    Dept: 2

Blas v. Pachuco, et al.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on 10/11/2019, is GRANTED. Summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Viden W. Palucho and Israel Carrillo and against Plaintiff Julio A. Blas.

In this action, Plaintiff Julio A. Blas alleges that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident as a result of the negligence of Defendants Viden W. Palucho and Israel Carrillo. (Defendant R.C. Trucking, Inc. (substituted in as Doe 1) has been dismissed). Defendants have moved for summary judgment, contending that the undisputed evidence establishes that neither defendant was negligent as a matter of law and that no negligent act or omission by either defendant was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

I. EVIDENCE

Defendants have presented evidence of the following facts. This action arises from a vehicle versus pedestrian accident. Defendant Palucho was the driver of a tractor trailer owned by Defendant Carrillo. On October 8, 2015, Palucho was driving a tractor trailer eastbound on 8th Street at about 5 miles per hour. Palucho intended to turn right onto Santa Fe Avenue. About 90 feet before the intersection, Palucho saw a blue car stopped on the shoulder and the driver was outside of the car. Palucho drove past the car and came to a complete stop at a red light. When the light turned green, Palucho proceeded into the intersection to make a right turn, and saw Plaintiff pushing about four feet to the right of the tractor trailer. The record does not reflect how the actual collision occurred. An officer arrived at the scene and concluded, based on his investigation, that the “primary collision factor” was Plaintiff’s violation of Vehicle Code section 21956(a), which restricts the places that pedestrians can walk on a roadway. The officer did not conclude that Palucho’s actions were a cause or contributing factor.

Defendant Carrillo was the sole registered owner of the tractor trailer that was involved in the accident. Carrillo had no knowledge of any unfitness or incompetence by Palucho at any time.

Plaintiff has not objected to any evidence offered by Defendants.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing either (1) one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or (2) there is a complete defense to the cause of action. CCP 437c(p)(2). Unless and until a defendant meets that burden, the plaintiff has no burden to present controverting evidence. Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 454, 468 (“There is no obligation on the opposing party . . . to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element . . . necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor.”) If a defendant fails to meet that burden, summary judgment must be denied, even if the plaintiff fails to file an opposition and fails to proffer any evidence.

III. DISCUSSION

The Court concludes that the evidence presented by Palucho is sufficient to meet his initial burden on summary judgment. Palucho offers the opinion of Officer Casteneda, as expressed in his deposition and in the police report, that Plaintiff’s violation of Vehicle Code section 21956(a) was the cause of the accident and that no negligence of Palucho caused or contributed to the accident. Plaintiff did not object to the introduction of this evidence and thus the Court considers it. These opinions were sufficient to meet Palucho’s initial burden as to the cause of the accident. The burden thus shifted to Plaintiff to present controverting evidence, but Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence in response. Given the absence of any controverting evidence, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant Palucho.

The Court next considers the claim against Mr. Carrillo, the owner of the vehicle. Plaintiff alleges a negligent entrustment claim against him. In order to prevail on a negligent entrustment claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant gave a driver permission to operate his or her vehicle and the defendant knew or should have known that the driver was incompetent, inexperienced or reckless. Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 703, 708-09. Here, Carrillo met his initial burden to make out a prima facie case that he did not know and had no reason to know that Mr. Palucho was incompetent or otherwise unfit to drive. Mr. Palucho had a valid driver’s license at the time of the accident, and been a truck driver for approximately 15 years and had obtained training related thereto. Carrillo had no knowledge of any traffic tickets by Palucho or of any traffic accidents that Palucho had been involved in. Carrillo never observed any issues or problems with Palucho’s ability to drive a vehicle and never had any suspicions that Palucho was reckless, incompetent or unfit to drive.

The burden thus shifted to Plaintiff to present controverting evidence. Plaintiff has filed no opposition and has not presented any controverting evidence. The Court thus grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant Carrillo.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer FIORE MAURO JR. LAW OFFICES OF