NAKESHA WILLIAMS VS METROLINK ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8392    Hearing Date: December 11, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks (without a valve) are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

William v Metrolink

Motion for Summary Judgment (Metrolink);

Motion for Summary Judgment (Challed)

ALLEGATIONS:

Nakesha Williams ("Williams") filed suit against Southern California Regional Rail Authority d/b/a Metrolink ("Metrolink"), Mark Challed ("Challed"), Emiliano Lugo ("Lugo"), and Tempest Transportation, Inc. ("Tempest"). Plaintiff alleged that she was a passenger on the Metrolink on September 06, 2016 incident where the train collided with a tractor-trailer driven by Lugo ("Incident"), causing injury to Plaintiff.

On August 01, 2019, the instant case was consolidated as the lead case with related cases BC660893, BC668544, BC668546, BC668547, BC668548, BC668549, BC669451, BC669235, BC720646, BC692376, and BC668543.

Plaintiff Williams filed a Complaint on May 16, 2017.

On June 29, 2017, Metrolink filed a Cross-Complaint ("MXC") against Tempest alleging four (4) causes of action sounding in: (1) Total Equitable Indemnity; (2) Partial Indemnity; (3) Declaratory Relief; and (4) Negligence.

On July 10, 2017, Challed filed a Cross-Complaint ("CXC") against Tempest, Florida Beauty Express ("FBE"), Florida Beauty Flora, Inc. ("FBF"), and Lugo, alleging three (3) causes of action sounding in: (1) Total Equitable Indemnity, (2) Partial Indemnity; and (3) Declaratory Relief.

PRESENTATION:

Metrolink filed the motion for summary judgment on September 25, 2020. Defendants and Cross-Complainants Lugo, FBE, Tempest, and FBF ("Lugo Cross-Complainants") filed an opposition on November 25, 2020. Plaintiff Williams filed an opposition on November 25, 2020. Plaintiffs Donte Brown, Keith Chicquelo, A.V. Hankins, Carlos Ernesto Marsh, Sharon Roddy, and Janet Young ("Brown Plaintiffs") filed an opposition on November 30, 2020. Metrolink filed a reply to Lugo Cross-Complainants and a reply to Brown Plaintiffs on December 04, 2020.

Challed filed the motion for summary judgment on September 25, 2020. Lugo Cross-Complainants filed an opposition on November 25, 2020. Williams filed an opposition on November 25, 2020. Brown Plaintiffs filed an opposition on November 30, 2020. Challed filed a reply to Lugo Cross-Complainants and a reply to Brown Plaintiffs on December 04, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Metrolink and Challed each move for summary judgment on the following pleadings:

Complaints and cross-complaints:

1. Clayton Adams v. SCRRA et. al.

2. Donte Brown v. SCRRA et. al.

3. Zulaika Brown SCRRA et. al.

4. Keith Chicquelo v. SCRRA et. al.

5 A.V. Hankins v. SCRRA et. al.

6. Carlos Marsh v. SCRRA et. al.

7. Sharon Roddy v. SCRRA et. al.

8. Gary Williams v. SCRRA et. al.

9. Nakesha Williams v. SCRRA et. al.

10. Janet Young v. SCRRA et. al.

11. Each of the seventeen (17) cross-complaints filed against SCRRA by Tempest Transportation, Inc., Florida Beauty Express, Florida Flora, Inc and Emiliano Lugo in the related and consolidated actions.

DISCUSSION:

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).) For the moving party to prevail, 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 of Civ. Proc., ;437c, subd. (o)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)

Merits – Metrolink Summary Judgment – Metrolink argues that (1) Lugo's violation of 49 C.F.R. ; 392.12 and Vehicle Code ; 22452(c) represent negligence per se and was the sole cause of the Incident; (2) Plaintiffs and Cross-Complainants cannot establish a breach of duty based on the Federal Railroad Safety Act's preemption over state and common law claims as to train speed; (3) Challed used reasonable care in operating the train at the time of the Incident, and his conduct in any case was not the cause of the Incident; (4) a claim based on the Negligent Hiring and Training of Challed is preempted by 49 C.F.R. ; 240.1(b); (5) the rail crossing warning signals were properly designed and functioning at the time of the incident; (6) the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the instant action as the Public Utilities Commission has the exclusive power to regulate highway-railroad crossings pursuant to Public Utilities Code ;; 1202 & 1759.

In opposition, Lugo Cross-Complainants argue that (1) Challed's negligence was the cause of the Incident; (2) the Federal Railroad Safety Act does not preempt common law negligence; (3) Challed acted negligently; (4) evidence of Lugo's negligence only raises issues of fact as to comparative negligence; (5) triable issues of fact exist as to whether the crossing safety signals functioned properly; and (6) a continuance to obtain additional evidence is warranted if the Court is inclined to accept the evidence argued by Metrolink.

In opposition, Brown Plaintiffs argue that (1) Metrolink's summary judgment motion exceeds 20 pages in violation of CRC Rule 3.113(d); (2) there exists a triable issue as to whether Challed was negligent in operating the train; and (3) good cause exists to continue the instant motion to obtain discovery from Challed and Metrolink's PMK.

In opposition, Williams contends that she entered into an agreement with Metrolink and Challed on November 04, 2020 and filed a request for dismissal entered on November 06, 2020 pursuant to that agreement.

As to the issue of federal preemption of the negligence claim, Metrolink argues only that allegations concerning train speed are preempted pursuant to Easterwood v. CSX Transp., Inc. (1993) 507 U.S. 658. (Mot., 12:8-27.) Lugo Cross-Defendants argue that their negligence claim does not solely allege excessive speeding, and alleges that Challed was negligent in failing to stop the train to avoid a hazard. Lugo Cross-Defendants contend that their claim is thus not preempted. As Metrolink does not address this argument in its reply, the Court considers the preemption argument forfeit.

The Court finds that triable material issues of fact exist as to whether Challed was negligent in operating the train at the time of the Incident and whether such negligent caused the Incident. Specifically, Lugo Cross-Complainants' Separate Statement sufficiently disputes the timing of Challed's application of the standard and emergency brakes, and Challed's conduct and judgment in applying such brakes. (Lugo Separate Statement, ¶¶ 26-27, 30.) These issues are material and subject the matter to triable dispute.

As to Williams, Metrolink does not address or respond to her opposition.

Accordingly, the Court will deny summary judgment as to Metrolink.

---

Merits – Challed Summary Judgment – Challed's summary judgment motion makes identical arguments to Metrolink's summary judgment motion. The Court thus refers to its analysis of Metrolink's motion, supra, and will deny summary judgment as to Challed.

---

RULING:

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.

ORDER

Defendant Southern California Regional Rail Authority d/b/a Metrolink's Summary Judgment Motion and Defendant Mark Challed's Summary Judgment Motion came on regularly for hearing on December 11, 2020, 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 (METROLINK) IS DENIED.

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CHALLED) IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE