Case Number: BC570501??? Hearing Date: August 19, 2016??? Dept: 98
ARMIDA JIMENEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOEL ROBERT WYNNE, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC570501
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
August 19, 2016
I. BACKGROUND
On January 28, 2015, Plaintiffs Armida Jimenez (?Ms. Jimenez?) and Alejandro Jimenez (?Mr. Jimenez?) (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) filed this action against Defendants Joel Robert Wynne (?Mr. Wynne?); Mingyi Wynne (erroneously sued as Mingyl Wynne) (?Ms. Wynne?); and Oscar Song (?Oscar?) for alleged damages arising out of an August 15, 2013 vehicle vs. pedestrian accident. Mr. and Ms. Wynne (?Moving Defendants?) now move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication
II. LEGAL STANDARD
In analyzing motions 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. Generally, ?the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.? Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants? Evidentiary Objections
Objection 1 to Declaration of Alejandro Jimenez SUSTAINED
Plaintiffs? Evidentiary Objections
Objections 1-2 OVERRULED
Effective January 1, 2016, the Court is only required to rule on evidentiary objections that are material to its disposition of the motion. The Court is no longer required to rule on all of the objections. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 437c(q).
Moving Defendants are husband and wife. Undisputed Material Facts (?UMF?), No. 1. Oscar, the son of a family friend, lived with Moving Defendants at the time of the incident, as he was attending school in the United States. UMF, Nos. 2-3. Moving Defendants received reimbursement for certain expenses they incurred on Oscar?s behalf from Oscar?s mother, but there was no contractual arrangement for such compensation. UMF, No. 4. On August 15, 2013, Mr. Wynne was driving his vehicle near the intersection of Amar Road and Del Valle Avenue in La Puente, California, intending to drop Oscar off at school. Mr. Wynne drove through a red light, striking Ms. Jimenez in a pedestrian crosswalk. Mr. Wynne was found stopped next to a park several miles west of the subject intersection about twenty minutes after the collision.
Moving Defendants contend that Mr. Wynne suffered from a diabetic coma caused by a sudden drop in blood sugar level at the time of the incident. Moving Defendants assert that there was nothing in Mr. Wynne?s medical history which suggested that he was at risk for lapsing into a diabetic coma or that there was a need to place him on any driving restrictions. Moving Defendants therefore argue that the collision was caused by an unanticipated illness, for which they cannot be held liable. Moving Defendants further argue that Ms. Wynne has no liability to Plaintiffs, as she neither owned the vehicle driven by Mr. Wynne nor was in a joint venture or contractual arrangement with Mr. Wynne. Moving Defendants therefore seek summary judgment in their favor.
Alternatively, Moving Defendants request summary adjudication of the following issues: 1) Mr. Wynne is not liable to Plaintiffs in negligence because he was suddenly stricken by an unanticipated illness while driving; 2) Mr. Wynne is not liable for ?inflicting injury on Plaintiffs through reckless disregard and safety of Plaintiffs? because he was suddenly stricken by an unanticipated illness while driving; 3) Ms. Wynne is not liable to Plaintiffs in negligence; and 4) Ms. Wynne is not liable to Plaintiffs for ?inflicting injury on Plaintiffs through reckless disregard and safety of Plaintiffs.?
Moving Defendants submit the declaration of Brian Chavez, M.D., a physician who is board certified in Internal Medicine and Endocrinology and who specializes in Diabetes care, insulin pump therapy, and all endocrine disorders. Declaration of Brian Chavez, M.D., ? 2. Mr. Wynne has been Dr. Chavez? patient since approximately 2009 and had seen him approximately every three months for treatment of his Type I Diabetes. Id., ? 3. Dr. Chavez avers that Mr. Wynne was well aware of his condition and its proper medical management and was compliance with his treatment. Id., ? 4. Prior to the subject incident, Mr. Wynne did not have recurrent hypoglycemia and was not at a high risk for diabetic coma or for blacking/passing out. Id., ? 5. There was no medical necessity to impose any driving restrictions on him. Id., ? 6. Based on Mr. Wynne?s claim that he felt lost as if dreaming and has no memory of the incident, and on the fact that his blood sugar level was tested at 42 by a paramedic immediately following the incident, Dr. Chavez concludes that Mr. Wynne suffered from a diabetic coma while he was driving. Id., ? 8.
Dr. Chavez asserts that he specializes in Diabetes care, insulin pump therapy, and endocrine disorders, but does not offer any evidence or further detail relating to those qualifications. No evidence is provided regarding how long he has specialized in Diabetes care, nor is any explanation given regarding his qualifications to conclude that Mr. Wynne suffered from a diabetic coma at the time of the incident. Moreover, Dr. Chavez bases his conclusion solely on Mr. Wynne?s claims that he felt lost and has no memory of the incident and his blood sugar level after the incident, without offering sufficient explanation or reason for this conclusion. Given that an expert?s opinion is no better than the reasons given for it and the evidence of the party moving for summary judgment must be strictly construed, the Court finds that, as to whether Mr. Wynne is liable to Plaintiffs, the declaration of Dr. Chavez is insufficient to show that there are no triable issues of material fact.
As to Ms. Wynne?s liability, she did not own the vehicle operated by Joel. Declaration of Joel Wynne, ? 6; Declaration of Mingyi Wynne, ? 6. Plaintiffs contend that there is a presumption that Ms. Wynne co-owned the vehicle, pursuant to California?s community property law. However, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that the vehicle was procured during Moving Defendants? marriage. Plaintiffs also provide no authority that supports the proposition that Ms. Wynne can be held liable pursuant to community property law or the imposition of negligence liability against Ms. Wynne under the undisputed facts of this case.
Plaintiffs further argue that there is still a triable issue of material fact as to whether Moving Defendants engaged in a joint venture, such that Ms. Wynne may be liable for Mr. Wynne?s wrongful conduct. A joint venture is created when two or more persons carry out a single business enterprise for profit. Simmons v. Ware (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1051. It remains undisputed that Moving Defendants were reimbursed for certain expenses they incurred on Oscar?s behalf, but that they were not compensated for allowing Oscar to live at their home or transporting him to school. UMF, No. 4. Plaintiff offers no evidence that Moving Defendants were engaged in any kind of joint venture for profit. Therefore, the Court finds that Moving Defendants have met their burden to show that there are no triable issues of material fact as to Ms. Wynne?s liability for the underlying incident.
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Moving Defendants? Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 1 and 2 is DENIED. The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 3 and 4 is GRANTED.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT98@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 19th day of August, 2016
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court