 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevenson v. Veterans Cab Company1/28/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Naquethia Stevenson appeals the dismissal of her personal injury suit, following the grant of summary judgment for Veterans Cab Company and cab driver Debra Singh. Stevenson contends the existence of a triable issue of fact regarding defendants' negligence precluded summary judgment. Stevenson concedes her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment was untimely filed, but contends the trial court should have ordered an extension of time for the hearing on the motion, despite her failure to request such relief below. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
Stevenson was a passenger in a vehicle attempting to evade police in a high-speed chase on an Oakland city street in the middle of the night. The vehicle ran several stop signs and struck the taxicab driven by Singh. Stevenson filed a negligence complaint against Singh and Veterans Cab Company. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Stevenson's discovery responses set forth no facts supporting her negligence claim, and all the evidence showed defendants had acted prudently and lawfully. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Stevenson had failed both to file timely opposition and to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding defendants' alleged negligence. This timely appeal followed the ensuing judgment of dismissal.
Discussion
Defendants filed their summary judgment motion with a hearing date set for June 15, 2000. The moving papers were timely served on Stevenson's counsel on May 15, 2000. Stevenson's opposition was due on June 1, 2000. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b). ) Stevenson served an untimely opposition on June 5, 2000, including a two-page separate statement of undisputed facts that lacked specific evidentiary support. Defendants objected to the untimely opposition, and filed a reply. On June 15, the matter was deemed submitted and the tentative ruling affirmed. Defendants' motion was granted on both procedural and substantive grounds.
It is within the trial court's discretion to grant summary judgment based on an opposing party's failure to file a separate statement as required by statute. (§ 437c, subd. (b); Security Pacific Nat. Bank. v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 89, 93; Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 950, 960-961; Blackman v. Burrows (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 889, 893-896.) Stevenson's statement was not only untimely, but also lacked citation to specific evidentiary support. In disputing defendants' statement that the collision was caused by the criminal misconduct of the driver of the car carrying Stevenson, appellant asserted that Singh's inattention was a contributory cause, citing the police report generally, without reference to a specific page. Our own review of the report reveals no such statement.
Summary judgment was also properly granted on the merits. Stevenson claims that even considering only the defendants' moving papers, a triable issue of fact was raised regarding Singh's negligence in entering the intersection where her taxi was hit. Singh testified at her deposition, however, that she made a complete stop at the stop sign, and did not see the lights of the pursuing police car until after she was struck by the vehicle carrying Stevenson. Singh's passenger also testified that Singh came to a complete stop and looked both w
Page 1 2 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|