Tentative ruling on Jan. 30, 2024 in Solano County, CA - Case no: xxxxx238

FCS058238
(1) Motion by Defendant ROHIT PIMENTA for Summary Judgment or, In the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication; and
(2) Motion by Defendant TURO, INC. for Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative,
Summary Adjudication
TENTATIVE RULING
As to both motions, summary judgment is denied, as neither ROHIT PIMENTA
(“PIMENTA”) nor TURO, INC. (“TURO”) has carried their respective burdens of proof to
establish the Insurance Code §11580.24 affirmative defense against possible statutory
liability as the vehicle owner (PIMENTA), or to establish the limits of such liability are
$15,000 (TURO). C.C.P. §437c(p)(2).
Summary adjudication is proper only as to a “cause of action, an affirmative defense, a
claim of damages, or an issue of duty. C.C.P. §437c(f)(1).
A vehicle owner has at a minimum statutory liability for a motor vehicle accident caused
by a permissive user (in the present case, ANTONIN STAUD, “STAUD”), even absent Continue Reading