16-CIV-02245 JIAN XIANG HUANG vs. SUPERSHUTTLE SAN FRANCISCO,

INC., et al.

JIAN XIANG HUANG THOMAS ALAN PAOLI

SUPERSHUTTLE SAN FRANCISCO, INC.

SUPERSHUTTLE SAN FRANCISCO INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

· DENIED. Defendant Supershuttle of San Francisco, Inc. (hereafter Supershuttle SF)’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, on the issue of vicarious liability, is Granted. Calif. Code of Civil Proc., Section 437c (f). Dismissal With Prejudice of Supershuttle SF, only,to be entered accordingly. Said Defendant to have and recover its costs of suit herein.

· Defendant Supershuttle SF, a Supershuttle franchisee, has made the adequate initial showing that such vicariously liability cannot be established in the face of a complete defense that it has independent contractor status. And the burden on this Motion having shifted to Plaintiff, Plaintiff Jian Xiang Huang has not carried his burden to demonstrate that there exists a triable issue of material fact on that element of the claim made against Supershuttle SF.

· This case arises from an accident at SFO Airport. Plaintiff Huang is a Supershuttle SF van driver injured when he was loading luggage into the back of his parked van. At that time, another van driver Defendant Youtam Amirdizaajtakeieh (hereafter Youtam), affiliated with a different Supershuttle franchisee Blue Eagle Limo and Shuttle, LLC (hereafter Supershuttle Blue Eagle,)struck Plaintiff Huang, caught between the two Supershuttle van vehicles, and injured him.

· The undisputed, and indisputable, material facts here are that Defendant Youtam –- who allegedly was the one who was negligent and caused this accident – was an independent contractor driving vans for Supershuttle Blue Eagle, and he was not affiliated in any way with the moving Defendant Suppershuttle SF. If there is any vicarious liability here it belongs to Supershuttle Blue Eagle – who is not a party to this lawsuit. Consequently, as a matter of law Supershuttle SF cannot be held vicariously liable for Youtam’s alleged negligence.

· In so ruling, the Court notes that the burden of proving the existence of the requisite agency relationship falls upon Plaintiff Huang who is the one claiming such agency. See, e.g., Burbank v. National Casualty Co. (1941) 43 Cal. App.2d 773, 781. See also Wiess v. Valenzuela (1988) 204 Cal. App.3d 1094, holding summary judgment proper where franchisor had no agency relationship with franchisee.

· Defendant Supershuttle SF’s Request for Judicial Notice is Granted.