(1) Motion for Summary Judgment and/or SAI (2) Motion for Summary Judgment and/or SAI???
Tentative Ruling:? (1)?Defendant Glorieta by the Sea, LLC?s?unopposed?Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. MP has sustained its initial burden to establish none of the causes of action alleged against them have merit. MP submits evidence that it was not the owner or possessor of the vehicle driven by Defendant Stine in the accident. The burden thus shifted to Plaintiffs to create a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiffs having not filed any opposition hereto, fails to sustain their burden and the motion is granted. MP to give notice.
MP has sustained its burden of establishing it had no ownership or possessory interest in the vehicles involved in the accident. As such, it could not give permission to Defendant Stine to use the vehicle and thus, there was no duty owed by MP. Plaintiffs fail to sustain their burden to create a triable issue of material fact by failing to file any opposition.? There being no opposition, summary judgment is granted.
(2)? The Court treats Defendant Martha Fluor?s motion as one for summary judgment only. The notice of motion and separate statement do not comply with CRC 3.1350(b), (d) so as to allow for summary adjudication.? The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Facts in dispute are Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and Additional Facts 1-15. There are triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant Martha was the owner of the truck used by Defendant Stines in the accident and whether Stines received permission to use that vehicle from Defendant Andrew.? (See CACI 724; and BAJI 13.50; See?Declaration of O?Malley, Exh. A, Exh. B, Declaration of Yabko, Exhs. A, B.)
RP to give notice.
Both parties submit the police report from the accident, although for different reasons.?Defendant?s objections to the police report submitted by Plaintiff are overruled as Defendant fails to properly format the objections; and Defendant also submitted the entire traffic collision report as well. In any event, there is a triable issue of fact as to Andrew granting permission in the traffic collision report wherein he states she had permission.? (See Declaration of O?Malley, Exh. B.)
Accordingly, there are triable issues of material fact on the issue of whether Andrew gave Stines permission, and whether Martha was a co-owner of the vehicle and thus responsible for 3rd?party Stines?s negligence.