Case Number: BC699297 Hearing Date: September 19, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ALEXANDER BRUNELL,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC699297

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

September 19, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Alexandra Brunell filed this action against Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier-DC, LLC, Rasier-PA, LLC, Matthew Victor Wong, Snooty Fox Motor Inn, and Pine Tree Industrial Corporation for damages arising out of a sexual assault. Plaintiff alleges Defendant, Wong, while working for Uber, took her to the Snooty Fox and raped and sodomized her at the motel.

2. Motion for Summary Judgment

a. Relief Sought

The Snooty Fox and Pine Tree move for summary judgment on the complaint, contending (a) no sexual assault occurred on Defendants’ premises, and (b) Defendants did not breach any duty to Plaintiff.

b. Initial Note

Defendants indicate they are making an alternative motion for summary adjudication. Defendants’ notice of motion and separate statement fail to comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1350(b), (d), and (h) governing motions for summary adjudication. The Court, therefore, will treat this solely as a motion for summary judgment, and will not consider any alternative motion for summary adjudication.

c. Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff submitted evidentiary objections with her opposition. She purports to object to the “entirety” of the various declarations submitted by Defendants, as well as the “entirety” of Defendants’ separate statement. This is not proper. CRC 3.1354(b). The Court declines to rule on the objections.

d. Causation

The primary issue on this motion is where sex between Plaintiff and Wong occurred. Moving Defendants contend it occurred in Wong’s van, and not in their hotel. If this is correct, any negligence on the part of Moving Defendants did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries, and therefore Moving Defendants would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint.

Defendants provide the testimony of Wong, from his criminal trials, concerning the events that occurred on the night of the incident. Wong testified that he picked up Plaintiff and others at the Dirty Laundry Bar, then dropped everyone except for Plaintiff off at another bar. Plaintiff then climbed into the front seat and began giving Wong directions to her house. Plaintiff began flirting with Wong, and eventually started kissing him. The two then had sexual intercourse in the van. After the intercourse, Plaintiff stopped providing directions to her house. She said she wanted to sleep. Wong saw the Snooty Fox Motel, and decided to get Plaintiff a room there because he did not know where else to take her. Plaintiff was awake but reported not feeling well. Wong went to the registration desk obtained a room. See facts 9-17, Exhibit D to the Rivera Dec, Wong’s trial testimony. Wong also testified that, inside the room, Plaintiff vomited for approximately twenty minutes, and he stayed to make sure Plaintiff was OK. Fact 26. Defendants’ CCTV shows Wong was with Plaintiff for approximately thirty minutes and then left. Fact 27.

The foregoing is sufficient to meet the moving burden to show Wong did not have sex with Plaintiff inside the motel room. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard. Plaintiff attempts to do so through her supplemental facts 21-24. Plaintiff’s fact 21 is that Wong rented a room from Defendants for the purpose of raping her. Plaintiff supports fact 21 with the Amended Felony Complaint and Trial Brief, which is attached the Declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney as Exhibit 7.

The Trial Brief contains an allegation that Wong brought Plaintiff to Defendants’ motel for the purpose of raping and sodomizing her. This allegation is based on the fact that Plaintiff has no memory of the night in question, surveillance footage shows the two of them together in the room for thirty minutes, and Plaintiff woke up partially clothed. The trial brief, however, is not actually testimony. It is based only on the circumstantial evidence that was gathered by the prosecutor who filed it. Wong’s own testimony (that sex occurred in his van and that he merely sat with Plaintiff while she vomited and until she fell asleep in the hotel), however, is consistent with all of the actual facts that are presented in the trial brief.

Plaintiff also submits facts 22-24, which purport to set up a timeline of the night in question. These facts show that Wong’s last trip ended at 1:05 a.m. (this would be the trip where he dropped off the others at the second bar); that Plaintiff called a friend at 1:30 a.m. and did not indicate anything was amiss; and that Plaintiff/Wong arrived at the Snooty Fox by 1:40 a.m. These facts amount to nothing more than speculation concerning when the rape occurred. There were 25 minutes between the drop-off at the bar and the phone call, then another ten minutes before the two arrived at the motel. The bar where the others were dropped off was called the Dark Room and was in Hollywood. Google Maps shows that it is 17 minutes between the two locations. Defendants correctly note that this means the two were together in the van for at least 18 minutes in addition to the drive time between the two locations. Any decision that rape must have occurred at the motel, as opposed to in the van, would be purely speculation, as there was sufficient time for the act to have occurred while the two were in the van.

The Court finds Defendants met their moving burden to show the rape occurred in Wong’s van, not in Defendants’ motel. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard. The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.

e. Additional Arguments

The Court declines to rule on Defendants’ additional arguments in support of their motion, as doing so is not necessary to a resolution of the merits of the motion.

f. Conclusion

Defendants met their moving burden to show the sexual assault occurred in Wong’s van, not on Defendants’ premises. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard. Defendants met their burden to show any duty and/or breach they may have committed therefore did not cause Plaintiff’s damages as a matter of law, such that they are entitled to summary judgment. Their motion is granted.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.