SHAWN STACKS ET. AL. VS. PATRICIA ANN STEPHENSON

Case Number: SC119234 Hearing Date: January 26, 2015 Dept: 92
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

SHAWN STACKS, ET AL.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

PATRICIA ANN STEPHENSON, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: SC119234

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #32
January 26, 2015

1. Allegations of the Complaint
Plaintiffs, Shawn Stack and Refiloe Matemotja filed this action against Defendants, Patricia Ann Stephenson dba Executive Limousine and Kirill Kozlov for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiffs were passengers in a limousine owned by Executive and driven by Kozlov when the limousine was involved in an accident with another automobile in the intersection of Santa Monica Blvd. and 26th Street.

Plaintiffs’ complaint, at ¶GN-1, alleges the accident was caused by Defendant Kozlov entering the subject intersection against a red light and at a high rate of speed.

2. 9/30/14 Motion for Summary Judgment
On 9/30/14, the Court heard and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court found Defendant met his initial burden to establish he did not enter the subject intersection at a high rate of speed, and he did not run a red light. The Court sustained all of Defendant’s objections to the evidence submitted in the opposition papers, and therefore found Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact.

3. Motion for New Trial
Plaintiffs move for a new trial, contending the Court erred in its ruling on the motion for summary judgment. As an initial note, Plaintiffs’ moving brief is 23 pages long, in violation of CRC 3.1113(d). Plaintiffs did not seek permission to file an over-sized brief. The Court, therefore, has only considered the first fifteen pages of the brief.

Plaintiffs’ motion consists of the following arguments:
1. The Court failed to consider whether Defendant was contributorily negligent because he was reckless and/or talking on a cell phone;
2. The Court failed to consider Defendant’s common carrier obligations;
3. The Court wrongfully failed to consider Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in support of the opposition.

Plaintiffs’ motion argues that the three arguments above support the granting of a new trial for a variety of reasons, including that the decision was against law, there was an error in law, and there was an abuse of discretion in connection with the order.

Plaintiffs’ first argument is that it was Defendant’s obligation to negate each and every theory set forth in the complaint. Plaintiffs contend Defendant failed to negate the theory that Defendant caused or contributed to the accident and was reckless by being inattentive and/or by talking on his cell phone. The Court has reviewed the actual complaint on file in this case. The only substantive allegations in the complaint are found at ¶GN-1. Plaintiffs, in that paragraph, allege that Defendant was negligent because he drove into the subject intersection at a high rate of speed, and that he went through a red light.

There are no allegations in the complaint that Defendant was being reckless (other than the two more specific allegations – that he was driving at a high rate of speed and that he went through a red light) or that he was being inattentive by talking on a cell phone. Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial fails to set forth any allegation in the complaint to this effect.

Plaintiffs are correct that Defendant has the burden, when moving for summary judgment, to negate every theory asserted in the complaint. In this case, however, Defendant did exactly that; there were only two theories asserted in the complaint, and Defendant negated each of them.

Plaintiffs’ second argument in their motion for new trial is that the Court failed to address the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in connection with Defendant’s duties as a common carrier. There are two problems with this argument. First, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs argued that Defendant had a higher duty of care because he was a common carrier. Plaintiffs did not, however, argue that res ipsa loquitor applied. That argument is being advanced for the first time in this brief. Second, the case upon which Plaintiffs rely to support this argument, Hardin v. San Jose City Lines, Inc. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 432, 436, is not applicable. In Hardin, the plaintiff was riding on a bus. The bus was traveling at a speed above the speed limit (not disputed), and the bus came to a very sudden stop, throwing Plaintiff to the ground. The Court held, under the circumstances, that an instruction concerning res ipsa loquitor was appropriate, and that the trial court appropriately instructed the jury that there was a rebuttable inference that the bus driver acted negligently under the circumstances. This case is not similar; this case involved a two-car accident, where clearly one of the two cars ran a red light and the other did not. There is no presumption that one of the drivers, as opposed to the other, was negligent.

Plaintiffs’ final argument is that this Court erred in excluding Plaintiffs’ evidence, even though it had considered Defendant’s very similar evidence. Plaintiffs misunderstand the Court’s ruling. The Court did not rule that Plaintiffs’ submitted evidence was inherently objectionable. The Court held only that there had been no authentication of the evidence, and therefore it could not be considered. Defendant objected to considering the evidence on the ground that none of the evidence was accompanied by an authenticating declaration. The Court properly sustained the objections.

Plaintiffs failed to show that any of the Court’s rulings were erroneous, or that grounds exist for a new trial in this case. The motion for a new trial is therefore denied.

Dated this 26th day of January, 2015

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *