Bridger Claims Services LLC vs Jonathan Walter Espinoza et al

Case Number

21CV01272

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/03/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Bridger Claims Services LLC vs. Jonathan Walter Espinoza

Case No. 21CV01272         

Hearing Date: May 3, 2024                                                    

MATTER:                Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment                                

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Bridger Claims Services LLC: Lee M. Mendelson,

                             Marc A. Schwarz, Mendelson Schwarz, A Professional Law Corporation

For Defendant Jonathan Walter Espinoza: Self Represented

For Defendant Sergio Morales dba Sergio’s Roofing and Rain

            Gutter: No appearance

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to defendant Jonathan Walter Espinoza.

Background:

On March 29, 2021, plaintiff Bridger Claims Services, LLC (BCS), filed its complaint in this matter alleging that it had in effect an automobile insurance policy with its insured Erika Vargas Roman. Plaintiff made payments under the policy for the repair of property and bodily injury costs in the amount of $34,918.01. Defendant Jonathan Walter Espinoza caused the damages that were paid by plaintiff when he rear-ended plaintiff’s insured. Plaintiff seeks subrogation recovery against Espinoza for the amounts it paid to its insured.

Defendant Espinoza filed an answer and general denial to the complaint on May 3, 2021, generally denying its allegations and alleging that plaintiff’s insured caused the subject collision by failing to maintain control of her vehicle.

On May 14, 2021, plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint naming Sergio Morales dba Sergio’s Roofing and Rain Gutter as defendant Doe 1 (Morales). Morales was served by substituted service on July 6, 2021. Morales has not filed an answer to the complaint, no default has been taken against Morales, and Morales has not been dismissed from this action.

On September 17, 2021, plaintiff served discovery on Espinoza including requests for admissions (set one). He failed to respond, and on September 16, 2022, the matters set forth in the requests for admissions were deemed admitted by Espinoza.

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no triable issues of fact with regard to liability or damages and plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Espinoza has filed no opposition or other response to the motion for summary judgment.

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).)

As BCS is the moving party, it must prove each element of its causes of action. Once it has done so, the burden shifts to Espinoza to show that there is a triable issue of one or more material facts.

            Subrogation

As stated above, this is a subrogation action. “The essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable 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. [Citations.]” (Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1292.)

The undisputed material facts (UMFs) in this case are:

“On or about October 26, 2019, the Plaintiff had in effect an insurance policy with ERIKA VARGAS ROMAN . . .” (UMF No. 1.) “Defendant negligently changed lanes into the vehicle of Plaintiff’s insured.” (UMF No. 2.) “As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff made payments under the Insured’s policy for the repair of the property and bodily injuries in the sum of $34,918.01.” (UMF No. 3.) “There is now due and owing from Defendant to Plaintiff the total sum of $34,918.01.” (UMF No. 4.)

The UMFs establish all of the essential elements of plaintiff’s subrogation claim against Espinoza. The burden would now shift to Espinoza to show the existence of a triable issue. However, as noted above, Espinoza has not opposed the motion.

Because BCS has met its burden of proving all of the elements of its cause of action against Espinoza, and the motion is unopposed, summary judgment will be granted in favor of BCS and against Espinoza.