Motion for Entry of Judgment in DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL| Trellis.Law

On May 16, 2019 a Judgment was filed involving a dispute between Nguyen, David, San Mateo County Child Support Services, and Chariot Transit, Inc., Does 1 To 30, Ford Motor Company, Wright, Sherman Lewis, for PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
EFS-020
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO.: 3099]7
FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Derek T. Lawson
FIRM NAME: Haight Brown 8~ Bonesteel LLP
STREET ADDRESS: ~jjrj S. FIOW@fStf@@t, 45th Floor
c~rv:Los Angeles STATE:(;A ZIP CODE: JOO7'I
TELEPHONE NO.: ~2~ 3~j42-$000 Fax No.: (213) 542-8100 ELECTRONICALLY
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
d~aWS011~I1bbI8W.CAf11 F I L E D
arroRr,ev FOR ~~ame>: Defts. Sherman Lewis Wright, Ford Motor Co. and Chariot Transit, Inc. Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, couNnr of SAN FRANCISCO
srReeTAooRess: 400 McAllister Street 03/07/2022
MAILING ADDRESS: Clerk of the Court
ciry nrvo zia cove: San Francisco, CA 94102 BY: BOWMAN LIU
BRANCH NAME: Deputy Clerk
CASE NUMBER:

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: DAVID NGUYEN
CGC-19-576056
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Richard B. Ulmer, Jr.
OTHER:
DEPT:
PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) 302

NOTE: This cover sheet is to be used to electronically file and submit to the court a proposed order. The proposed order sent
electronically to the court must be in PDF format and must be attached to this cover sheet. In addition, a version of the proposed
order in an editable word-processing format must be sent to the court at the same time as this cover sheet and the attached proposed
order in PDF format are filed.

7• Name of the party submitting the proposed order:
Defts. Sherman Lewis Wright, Ford Motor Co. and Chariot Transit, Inc.

2. Title of the proposed order:
[Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal

3. The proceeding to which the proposed order relates is:
a. Description of proceeding: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

b. Date and time: August 24, 2021 9:30 a.m.

c. Place: San Francisco Superior Court, Dept. 302

4. The proposed order was served on the other parties in the case.

Derek T. Lawson / /
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) NATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)

Page 7 of 2

Cal. Rules of Court,
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) rules 2.252, 3.1312
Judicial Council of California
EFS-020 [Rev. February 1, 2017] (Electronic Filing) www.courts.ca.gov
EFS-020
CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER:
David Nguyen v. Sherman Lewis Wright, et al. CGC-19-576056

PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
PROPOSED ORDER

1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action.

a• My residence or business address is (specify):
555 S. Flower Street, 45th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071

b. My electronic service address is (specify):
jmentesana(~hbblaw.com

2, I electronically served the Proposed Order (Cover Sheet) with a proposed order in PDF format attached, and a proposed order in
an editable word-processing format as follows:

a. On (name of person served) (If the person served is an attorney, the party or parties represented should also be stated.):
Christopher P. Mesaros, Esq.
FIRST LAW GROUP
314 E. Rowland Street
Covina. CA 91723
b. chris~firstlp.com; eric~firstlg.com; christina(a~firstlg.com
To (electronic service address of person served):
c. On (date): March 7, 2022

~ Electronic service of the Proposed Order (Cover Sheet) with the attached proposed order in PDF format and service of the
proposed order in an editable word-processing format on additional persons are described in an attachment.

declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: March 7, 2022

~~~~,
/s/Julie C. Mentesana ~
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)

Page 2 of 2
EFS-020 [Rev. February 1, 2017] PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET)
(Electronic Filing)
1 Krsto Mijanovic (Bar No. 205060)
kmijanovic@hbblaw. com
2 Derek T. Lawson (Bar No. 309977)
dlawson@hbblaw. com
3 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
555 South Flower Street, Forty-Fifth Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: 213.542.8000
5 Facsimile: 213.542.8100

6 Attorneys for Defendants SHERMAN LEWIS
WRIGHT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and
7 CHARIOT TRANSIT, INC.

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

11 ~ DAVID NGUYEN, Case No. CGC-19-576056

12 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to:
Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr., Dept. 302
13 v.
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF
~ 14 SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, FORD DISMISSAL
MOTOR COMPANY, CHARIOT TRANSIT,
15 INC., and DOES 1 to 30, Action Filed: May 16, 2019
Trial Date: January 3, 2022
16 Defendants.

18
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
19
On August 24, 2021, the Court granted Defendants SHERMAN WRIGHT LEWIS, FORD
20
MOTOR COMPANY, and CHARIOT TRANSIT, INC. (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for
21
Summary Judgment. A true and correct copy of this Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
22
Further, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1312, Plaintiff DAVID NGUYEN
23
("Plaintiff') has approved as to form of the [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal as Plaintiff's
24
counsel failed to notify Defendants' counsel within the time required (i.e., five days) regarding
25
either Plaintiff's approval or disapproval as to form. A true and correct copy of the correspondence
26
with Plaintiff's counsel regarding approval of the [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal as to form is
27
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
28

Ps2~-oo000~2 1
1a08n93.1 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
1 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that a JUDGMENT OF

2 DISMISSAL is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff with prejudice. Plaintiff shall

3 recover nothing by way of his complaint against Defendants and Defendants shall recover from

4 Plaintiff all costs resulting from defense of the complaint to the extent supported under law.

6 ~ DATED: , 2022
Richard B. Ulmer, Jr.
7 Judge of the Superior Court
8

~ 14

PS27-0000012 2
14087293.1 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
EXHIBIT A
/~ '.
t
~J

1 Krsto Mijanovic (Bar No. 205060)
kmijanovic@hbblaw. com
an Frano/sco County
2 Lisa T. Omoto (Bar No. 303830) 3uperlor ourt
lomoto@hbblaw.com
3 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP AUG ~ ~ 2021
555 South Flower Street, Forty-Fifth Floor
4 ~ Los Angeles, California 90071 CLERK FY OUI9T
Telephone: 213.542.8000 BY: L+.
5 Facsimile: 213.542.8100 ep~tY ~f~erK

6 Attorneys for Defendants SHERMAN LEWIS
WRIGHT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and
7 CHARIOT TRANSIT, INC.

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFO1tNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 ~ DAVID NGUYEN, Case No. CGC-19-576056
12 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to:
Hon. Garrett L. Wong, Dept. 206
13 v.
[~O€A~] ORDER GRANTING
14 SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, FORD DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
MOTOR COMPANY, CHARIOT TRANSIT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT
15 INC., and DOES 1 to 30,
16 Defendants. Date: August 24, 2021
Time: 9:30 a.m.
17 Dept.: 302

18 Action Filed: May 16, 2019
Trial Date: January 3, 2022
19
The Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of
20
Defendants SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and CHARIOT
21
TRANSIT, INC. ("Defendants") against Plaintiff DAVID NGUYEN ("Plaintiff') came on for
22
hearing before this Court in Department 302 on August 24, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. Lisa T. Omoto of
23
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants. Eric A. Forstrom of First Law
24
Group, APC appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.
25
After full consideration of the evidence, moving, opposing, and reply papers, the separate
26.
statements submitted by each party, the authorities submitted by each party, and upon such
27
evidence and argument presented prior to and at the hearing, the Court orders as follows:
28

rs27.~o00012 ~p ~ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SiJNIlV1ARY
13571396.1 JUDGMENT
Defendants' (SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and
2 CHARIOT TRANSIT, INC.) motion for summary judgment is granted.
3 In this vehicle accident case, plaintiff alleges that Mr. Wright breached his duty of care and
4 caused plaintiff's injuries. Whether a defendant breaches its duty of care is usually an issue for the
5 trier of fact to resolve. (See Musgrove v. Ambrose Properties (1978) 87 Ca1.App.3d 44, 53
6 ["Breach of duty is usually a fact issue for the jury; if the circumstances permit a reasonable doubt
7 whether the defendant's conduct violates the standard of due care, the doubt must be resolved by
the jury as an issue of fact rather than of law by the court"].) Moreover, the Court liberally

9 ~ construes the evidence in favor of plaintiff, as the party opposing summary judgment. (See

10 Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Ca1.4th 1138, 1142.)
11 Nevertheless, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment where it demonstrates that

12 plaintiff's claim cannot be established and the plaintiff fails to create a triable issue of material
13 fact. "A party can obtain summary judgment only by establishing the merit of his [or her] case `as

14 a matter of law.' (... § 437c, subd. (c).) The phrase `as a matter of law' is another way of saying

15 that the evidence available to the parties, and placed before the court in support of and in

16 opposition to the motion, raises no material issue that a trier of fact could resolve in favor of the

17 party opposing the motion:' (Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 756.)
18 "There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier

19 of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the [plaintifFJ in accordance with the applicable
20 standard of proof." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Ca1.4th 826, 850.)
21 Defendants assert that Mr. Wright initiated his left turn once the light turned red and the

22 intersection was clear. (Wright Decl., par. 6; Defendants' Appendix of Evidence, Ex.4 (dashcam

23 video.) Defendants aver that as a matter of law Mr. Wright complied with his duty of care under
24 ~~ Vehicle Code Section 21801(a) by making his turn "with reasonable safety."
25 The Court admits the dashcam video into evidence. Plaintiff fails to show that defendants

26 "willfully" withheld evidence such that exclusion of it on this motion is warranted. (See Thoren v.

27 .Iohnson &Washer (1972) 29 Ca1.App.3d 270, 275 [court could exclude testimony from witness

28 where interrogatory response that failed to identify witness was "willfully false"); Biles v. Exxon
2
ps2~-oo00012 [PROP ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUNIMARY
13571396.1 JUDGMENT
~l ;~,
,--%' ~.=

1 Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1324 [error to exclude witness testimony where no

2 showing that party willfully failed to supplement discovery response that was truthful when

3 provided].) Here, plaintiff merely establishes that "Defendants' `dash cam video' was never

4 produced as part of a verified document Production." (Forstro~x► Decl., ¶ 5.) The evidence is
5 admitted because plaintiff makes no showing that defendant willfully withheld the video.

6 Based on the Court's review of the dashcam video, the Court agrees with defendants that

7 no reasonable trier of fact could find that Mr. Wright breached his duty of care. The video shows

8 that Mr. Wright entered the intersection while the light was yellow, executed the left turn when the

9 light was red and the oncoming cars had stopped, and plaifntiff ran the red light and collided with

10 defendants' vehicle. Under these circumstances, defendants cannot be liable as a matter of law
11 and plaintiff essentially concedes the same. (See Defendants' Appendix of Evidence, Ex.6

12 (Plaintiffs Depo:69:13-70:1; 70:20-71:15).) The Court fiuther finds that Mr. Wright's

13 ambiguous statements to Officer Siracusa fail to create a triable issue of material fact in light of all

14 of the evidence in the record. (See Scott v. Harris (200 550 U.S. 372, 379 [where the plainti#Fs

15 version of what happened "quite clearly contradicts" what videotape evidence showed, there was

16 no genuine issue of material fact, absent allegations that the video was altered]; Swigart v. Bruno

17 (2017) 13 Ca1.App.Sth 529, 553, fn 4 ["[t]o the extent that [plaintiff's] witnesses' testimony was

18 inconsistent with the video, we do not consider such inconsistency a disputed fact and have relied

19 on the evidence in the video."].)

20 "Where a car has actually entered an intersection before the other approaches it, the driver

21 of the first car has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to

22 pass through the intersection without danger of collision. He has a right to assume that the driver

23 of the other car will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be
24 necessary to prevent a collision." (Leblanc v. Cloverdale (1931) 213 Cal. 654, 658.) A left-

25 turning driver is not liable "[i]f another driver, by reason of his violation of a staxutory provision,

26 or by reason of other negligent conduct, collides with him:' (Washam v. Peerless Automatic Staple

27 Mach. Co. (1941) 45 Ca1.App.2d 174, 178.) "[E]very person has a right to presume that every

28 other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable ground to
3
rsz7-a0000l2 ED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SU1VIlviARY
13571396.1 JUDGMENT
,-~•~ Y om\

1 think otherwise it is not negligence to assume that he is not exposed to danger which comes to him
2 only from violation of law or duty by such other person:' (Dickinson v. Pack Greyhound Lines
3 (1942) 55 Ca1.App.2d 824, 827.)
4 1 Plaintiff argues that Mr. Wright was negligent per se because he did not have the correct
5 type of driver's license on the date of the incident. (See Evid. Code sec. 669.) Negligence is a
6 ~ rebuttable evidentiary presumption and to trigger that presumption, plaintiff must show that "[t]he
7 violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property." (Evid Code § 669(a)(2);
S CACI 418.) Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate how improper licensure was a proximate cause of
9 the accident, especially in light of the dashcam video that shows that Mr. Wright was driving his
10 vehicle in a safe manner and the accident was caused by plaintiff running the red light.
11 IT IS SO ORD RED.
12 DATED: August G%~ , 2021

13
14
JUDGE OF S OR COURT
15
ETHAN P. SCHULMAN
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25'.
26
27
28

PS27-0000012 G DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SiJIvIMARY
13571396.1 JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT B
From: Lawson, Derek T.
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1123 AM
To: 'chris@firstlg.com'
Cc: 'eric@firstlg.com'; 'christina@firstlg.com'
Subject: RE: (Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal -David Nguyen v. Sherman Lewis Wright, et al.
Attachments: [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal.DOCX; Nguyen_ Order Granting Sherman Lewis
Wright, et al. MSJ (signed and conformed)_ PS27-12.PDF

Mr. Mesaros,

Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1312, the failure to notify Defendants regarding your approval as to the
form of the [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal within the time required (i.e., within five days), shall be deemed an
approval.

We will file the [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal today accordingly to be entered by the Court.

Thanks,

Derek

From: Lawson, Derek T.
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2022 9:29 AM
To: 'chris@firstlg.com'
Cc: 'eric@firstlg.com'; 'christina@firstlg.com'
Subject: RE: [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal -David Nguyen v. Sherman Lewis Wright, et al.

Mr. Mesaros,

Following upon my email below.

Please confirm your approval as to form of Defendants' [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal so that we can file with the
Court.

Thanks,

Derek

From: Lawson, Derek T.
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 12:54 PM
To: 'chris@firstlg.com'
Cc: 'eric@firstlg.com'; 'christina@firstlg.com'
Subject: [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal -David Nguyen v. Sherman Lewis Wright, et al.

Mr. Mesaros,

Attached please find Defendants' [Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal.

Per California Rules of Court Rule 3.1312, please confirm your approval as to form so that we can file with the Court.
Thanks,

Derek

Derek T. Lawson ~ Profile
Attorney
D: (213) 542-8022
dlawson(a~hbblaw.com

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
555 South Flower Street
Forty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
O: 213-542-8000
F: 213-542-8100
www.hbblaw.com

The contents of this email message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressees) hereof. This email transmission may be confidential and it may be
subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to
you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person
other than the intended recipients) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the
sender by reply e-mail. We request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION PROHIBITED BY
FEDERAL LAW (18 U.S.0 2510-2522).

Case Info

Judge

Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 07, 2022

Case Filing Date

May 16, 2019

County

Parties

CHARIOT TRANSIT, INC. Defendant
DOES 1 TO 30 Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY Defendant
MESAROS, CHRISTOPHER P. Attorney for the Plaintiff
MIJANOVIC, KRSTO Attorney for the Defendant
NGUYEN, DAVID Plaintiff
SANCHEZ, ROBERT Attorney
SAN MATEO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Claimant
WRIGHT, SHERMAN LEWIS Defendant
Eric Forstrom Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Christopher Pan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Paul Renne Attorney
Evan Reese Attorney
Lisa Omoto Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Myers Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Leah Mason Attorneys for Defendants
Marjorie Reese Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Judgment: DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL

Preview

Case Info

Parties