Connect By American Family vs Bardomiano Gonzalez

Case Number

21CV00792

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/12/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff Connect By American Family’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The court will sign the proposed order submitted by plaintiff.

Background:

This action commenced on February 26, 2021, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Connect By American Family (“Connect”), against defendant Bardomiano Gonzalez. The complaint sets forth causes of action for subrogation claim and indebtedness.

As alleged in the complaint: On May 10, 2019, Connect provided automobile insurance to Joe Weicai Lei. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) On that date, Gonzalez rear-ended Lei resulting in Connect making payments, for property damage and uninsured motorist injury, in the amount of $9,500.00 (Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 10.)

Gonzalez filed his answer to the complaint on March 29, 2021. Notably, he neither admits nor denies the allegations of the complaint.

On April 14, 2021, Connect served Gonzalez with requests for admissions (“RFAs”). (Mendelson Dec., ¶ 3 & Exh. 2.) Having received no responses to the RFAs, Connect filed a motion for order that the truth of the matters specified in the RFA’s be deemed admitted. (Mendelson Dec., ¶  4 & Exh. 3.)

On April 8, 2022, the court granted Connect’s motion, and the following facts were deemed admitted: (1) Gonzalez was involved in an automobile accident on May 10, 2019; (2) Gonzalez rea-ended Connect’s insured vehicle on that date; (3) Due to Gonzalez’ negligence, Connect paid out damages under the insured’s policy in the amount of $9,500.00; and (4) Gonzalez owes Connect $9,500.00. (Mendelson Dec., ¶ 5 & Exhs. 2, 4; Statement of Undisputed Facts, 1-4.) Additionally, monetary sanctions were awarded in favor of Connect.

Connect now moves for summary judgment based on the undisputed facts. Gonzalez was served with the motion, via mail, on November 17, 2021. Gonzalez has not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

Analysis:

Standard on Summary Judgment

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that . . . there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)

“[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) There is no obligation on the opposing party to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element necessary to sustain an adjudication in his favor. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Smilecare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)

            Plaintiff’s Burden

“[S]ummary judgment law in this state no longer requires a plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action. In this particular, it now accords with federal law. All that the plaintiff need do is to ‘prove[ ] each element of the cause of action.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).)” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853.)

“A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

“The essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for subrogation are as follows: “ ‘(a) the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; (b) the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; (c) the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable; (d) the insurer has paid the claim of its insured to protect its own interest and not as a volunteer; (e) the insured has an existing, assignable cause of action against the defendant which the insured could have asserted for its own benefit had it not been compensated for its loss by the insurer; (f) the insurer has suffered damages caused by the act or omission upon which the liability of the defendant depends; (g) justice requires that the loss be entirely shifted from the insurer to the defendant, whose equitable position is inferior to that of the insurer; and (h) the insurer’s damages are in a liquidated sum, generally the amount paid to the insured.’ ” [Citation.]” (State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1111, 1112.)

By way of Connect’s undisputed material facts, all of the elements for the subrogation cause of action have been conclusively established. Connect has met its burden and shown its entitlement to the sum of $9,500.00 from Gonzalez. Gonzalez has not refuted any of the facts or evidence. As such, summary judgment will be entered in favor of Connect.