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.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
BLAS JULIO A.
DOES 1 TO 20
PALUCHO VIDEN W.
R.C. TRUCKING LLC (DOE 1)
R.C. TRUCKING LLC DOE 1
MAURO FIORE JR
JR MAURO FIORE
FIORE MAURO FIORE JR.
MUENCH RICHARD A. ESQ.
MUENCH RICHARD ARTHUR ESQ.
9/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION OF ATTORNEY MAURO FIORE, JR./LAW OFFICES OF...)
9/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
9/24/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FSC, ...)
10/11/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment
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
10/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
1/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
1/9/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
4/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020
4/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
7/15/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER - MSJ
7/30/2019: Notice of Motion
7/30/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
2/14/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
3/13/2018: PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
10/5/2017: SUMMONS -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReSubmittal of Proposed Summary Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Notice of Entry of Order - MSJ); Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketJudgment ((PROPOSED) JUDGMENT); Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
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 MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 3:14 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/16/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
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 MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANTS' VIDEN U. PALUCHO AND ISRAEL CARRILLO ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
DocketReceipt; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by VIDEN W. PALUCHO (Defendant); ISRAEL CARRILLO (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by JULIO A. BLAS (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC678473 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.
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.
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases