This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 02:32:28 (UTC).

SHILA KESHRIM VS DEXTER VILLANUEVA ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/11/2017 SHILA KESHRIM filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DEXTER VILLANUEVA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9019

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KESHRIM SHILA

Defendants and Respondents

VILLANUEVA DEXTER

HEIDRICH BRIAN

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SHEMTOUB MICHAEL

Defendant Attorney

ATANOUS CLEIDIN Z

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service

11/20/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Unknown

11/26/2018: Unknown

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/30/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/30/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Demand for Jury Trial

12/12/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice

12/12/2018: Notice

Answer

12/12/2018: Answer

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

10/11/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Unknown

10/11/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

10/11/2017: SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by DEXTER VILLANUEVA (Defendant); BRIAN HEIDRICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Notice (Of Posting Jury Fees); Filed by DEXTER VILLANUEVA (Defendant); BRIAN HEIDRICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by DEXTER VILLANUEVA (Defendant); BRIAN HEIDRICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Answer; Filed by DEXTER VILLANUEVA (Defendant); BRIAN HEIDRICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by SHILA KESHRIM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by SHILA KESHRIM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Proof of Service - No Service (Of Summons); Filed by SHILA KESHRIM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by SHILA KESHRIM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by SHILA KESHRIM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679019    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT BRIAN HEIDRICH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Shila Keshrim (“Plaintiff”) alleges a 2008 Audi sedan hit her car on October 13, 2015. She filed this action against defendants Dexter Villanueva (“Villanueva”) and Brian Heidrich (“Heidrich”). Defendant Heidrich moves for summary judgment, arguing he was not driving and did not own the Audi.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages . . . or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia 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 or summary adjudication “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, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence. (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.” (Ibid.)  The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The plaintiff may not merely rely on 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.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently owned, operated, employed the person who operated, maintained, entursted, and/or controlled the Audi to cause it to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Heidrich argues there is no evidence he did anything to create or cause the accident as he was not operating the Audi at the time of the accident and had no ownership interest in the Audi. He contends Villanueva was driving and owned the Audi. In support of this argument, he submits Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories stating that Villanueva was the driver of, only occupant in, and the owner of the Audi (Exh. B, p. 14), and Villanureva’s responses to requests for admission in which Villanueva admitted he was the only owner of the Audi at the time of the accident. (Exh. D, pp. 2-3.) The printout of the DMV registration lists Villanueva, and not Heidrich, as the registered owner of the Audi at the time of the accident. (Exh. E.) Heidrich also states he did not employ Villanueva and Villanueva was not acting as his agent at the time of the accident. (Heidrich Decl., ¶¶ 10-13.) Heidrich has met his initial burden of showing that Plaintiff cannot prove the elements of negligence because Heidrich was not driving and was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact exists.

Plaintiff argues that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Heidrich was the owner of the Audi because Heidrich’s and Villanueva’s discovery responses state that Heidrich was the named insurance policy holder and owner of the insurance policy through which both Defendants are insured and that both Defendants live at the same address. (Exh. A.)

The liability of an owner of a motor vehicle for injury to a person caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle is established in Vehicle Code section 17150. “ ‘Owner’ as the term is used in section 17150 was defined in the case of Borjesson v. Simpson, 177 Cal.App.2d 365, 368, 2 Cal.Rptr. 366, 367. There the court stated: ‘The liability of the owner as established by [section 17150] is purely statutory. . . . [O]wnership liability is determined by the registration record and certain transfer procedures prescribed by the Vehicle Code. These sections provide an owner who sells or transfers his vehicle and delivers possession at the time of sale a means of protecting himself from the liability imposed by [section 17150].’ [Citation.]” (Laureano v. Christensen (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 515, 519.) The Vehicle Code transfer procedures are not pertinent here.

Heidrich submitted a printout of the DMV registration listing Villanueva as the registered owner of the Audi at the time of the accident. (Exh. E.) Plaintiff did not object to this exhibit or discuss it in her opposing papers. Nor does Plaintiff cite any legal authority that the holder of an insurance policy and a named insured is thereby the owner of the vehicle. Plaintiff did not present any evidence that Heidrich was the owner of the Audi according to the registration record. (Laureano, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d at p. 519.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown any disputed fact regarding Heidrich’s lack of ownership of the Audi.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: BC679019    Hearing Date: October 30, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

On October 11, 2017, plaintiff Shila Keshrim (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Dexter Villanueva and Brian Heidrich (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence relating to a motor vehicle incident on October 13, 2015. Defendant served subpoenas on nine of Plaintiff’s medical providers on May 2, 2019. The parties agreed that for those deposition subpoenas, the scope of relevant of discoverable documents would reach back to January 1, 2010.

On August 6, 2019, Defendant served another deposition subpoena on Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Cedars-Sinai”). Plaintiff objected that it sought the production of Plaintiff’s records from birth to present. On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff served a met and confer letter explaining her objections and proposed that the documents produced be limited to the two years before the accident. Defendants withdrew the subpoena and issued a new one on September 6, 2019. However, the time frame of the documents requested reached back to 2010 concerning treatment of Plaintiff’s head, neck, back, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Plaintiff objected and sought to limit the production of documents to the last two years before the accident. Defendants rejected this proposal on grounds that Plaintiff previously stipulated to discovery of documents beginning in 2010. Plaintiff seeks to quash the deposition subpoena to Cedars-Sinai or, in the alternative, limit Cedars-Sinai’s production of documents to only those beginning in October 13, 2013.

When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.” (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.) The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information, and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.) “[A]lthough in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient . . . privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

Defendants did not oppose this motion, thereby conceding Plaintiff’s arguments about the overly broad scope of the subpoena. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion by limiting the scope of the subpoena to include records from Cedars-Sinai’s medical, billing, and radiology departments regarding treatment of Plaintiff from October 13, 2013 to the present.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.