This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2019 at 00:54:39 (UTC).

SEAN NEWSOME VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/23/2018 a Contract - Professional Negligence case was filed by SEAN NEWSOME against LOS ANGELES COUNTY in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1075

  • Filing Date:

    01/23/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

NEWSOME SEAN

Respondents and Defendants

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

REEVES BRIAN JAMES

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4/24/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

ANSVER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT BRIAN JAMES REEVES

4/24/2018: ANSVER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT BRIAN JAMES REEVES

Minute Order

5/1/2018: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/2/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

5/8/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/8/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL

5/17/2018: NOTICE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL

Motion to Compel

4/11/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion for Order

4/11/2019: Motion for Order

Notice

5/22/2019: Notice

Minute Order

5/30/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

6/3/2019: Notice of Ruling

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

1/31/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1/31/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/31/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUMMONS

1/23/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

1/23/2018: COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Los Angeles County (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (County of Los Angeles' Motion to Compel Responses to Form Int...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF HEARINGS OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SEAN NEWSOME TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS ADMITTED); Filed by Los Angeles County (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Sean Newsome (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 01/31/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sean Newsome (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sean Newsome (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Sean Newsome (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC691075    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2018, Plaintiff Sean Newsome (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Brian James Reeves alleging negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on April 28, 2017.

On August 30, 2019, Defendants County of Los Angeles and Brian James Reeves filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

Trial is set for January 23, 2020.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendant County of Los Angeles and Brian James Reeves (“Moving Defendants”) ask the Court to grant summary judgment in Moving Defendants favor and against Plaintiff because deemed admissions show Plaintiff cannot establish the elements for negligence.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, 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.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment “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 . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).)  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Id.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff.¿ (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) [A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests for admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.’” Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 971 (citing Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979). to be true.  (Swedberg v. Christina Community Builders (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 138, 143-144.)

Moving Defendants undisputed material facts establish the following.  The Court deemed the matters set forth in Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff.  (UMF Nos. 1-6, pp. 1:26-3:6.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff admitted Defendant County of Los Angeles was not negligent on April 28, 2017, Defendant County of Los Angeles did not cause Plaintiff any harm on April 28, 2017, and Defendant County of Los Angeles is not liable for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.  (Ibid.) Ibid.)  Further, Plaintiff admitted that the driver of Defendant County of Los Angeles’ vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger on April 28, 2017 was not negligent in the operation of the vehicle.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Moving Defendants have met their burden.  Plaintiff’s admissions demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact regarding duty, breach, causation, and damages of Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action.  Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Brian James Reves was the driver of the bus that Plaintiff alleges was driven negligently.  (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 8-11.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff admitted that neither Defendant Brian James Reves nor Defendant County of Los Angeles was negligent.  Moving Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Plaintiff has not submitted an opposition.

CONCLUSION

The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.