`
`
`
`MICHAEL E. GALLAGHER, ESQ. (SBN 195592)
`mgallagher@eghblaw.com
`
`JESPER I. RASMUSSEN, ESQ. (SBN 121001)
`jrasmussen@eghblaw.com
`NWADIUTO C. AMAJOYI, ESQ. (330830)
`namajoyi@eghblaw.com
`EDLIN GALLAGHER HUIE + BLUM
`515 South Flower Street, Suite 1020
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone:
`(213) 412-2661
`Facsimile:
`(213) 652-1992
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Moath Yousef Izzat Nemer
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`03/18/2022
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
`Deputy Clerk
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
`
`
`Case No. CGC-20-584157
`
`
`DEFENDANT MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT
`NEMER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AGAINST PLAINTIFF
`
`[Filed concurrently with Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities in Support; Separate
`Statement of Undisputed Facts; Declaration of
`Nwadiuto C. Amajoyi; Declaration of Moath
`Yousef Izzat Nemer; and [Proposed] Order]
`
`Date: June 7, 2022
`Time: 9:30 A.M.
`Dept.: 302
`
`April 15, 2020
`Complaint Filed:
`Cross-Complaint Filed: March 12, 2021
`Trial: September 6, 2022
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`ANDREW JOHNSON,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT NEMER,
`MARWAN NEMER, UBER
`TECHNOLOGIES, RAISER LLC, RAISER-
`CA LLC, MARIE ALTENDAHL, and DOES
`1 through 100, inclusive,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`2819810
`
`1
` DEFENDANT MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT NEMER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 7, 2022 at 9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, in DEPARTMENT 302 of the San Francisco Superior Court located at
`400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT
`NEMER (“Defendant”) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an Order for summary
`judgment against Plaintiff ANDREW JOHNSON’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint.
`This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c(a) upon the
`grounds that Defendant Nemer owed no duty to Plaintiff to prevent the harm alleged because he
`had no duty to control the conduct of the third party rider, Defendant MARIE ALTENDAHL
`(“Altendahl”). Second, even if Plaintiff could establish that Nemer owed him any duty, which he
`undisputedly did not, Plaintiff cannot establish any breach by Nemer because Nemer did not
`breach any general duty of reasonable care in operating his vehicle. As a driver sharing the
`roadway with other vehicles and bicyclists, the only duty imputed on Nemer is the duty to
`exercise reasonable and ordinary care with regards to his own conduct and any conduct within
`his control. However, the acts and/or omissions of third parties not within his control do not
`constitute any breach by Nemer. As such, the independent conduct of third-party rider Altendahl
`does not establish any breach on behalf of Nemer. Finally, Nemer did not proximately cause any
`of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
`This Motion is based upon this notice, the supporting Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities; the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the evidence in support of the
`motion, including the supporting Declarations of Nwadiuto C. Amajoyi and Moath Yousef Izzat
`Nemer; all pleadings, records and files herein; and such other evidence and argument as the
`Court may allow.
`PLEASE ALSO TAKE NOTICE, that San Francisco Superior Court has a Tentative
`Ruling system, as expressed in San Francisco Superior Court local rule 8.3. The local rule states,
`in part: “Tentative rulings are generally available by 3:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. A
`tentative ruling that does not become available until after 3:00 p.m. is a late tentative ruling. A
`late tentative ruling will indicate that the ruling is late. If a tentative ruling is late, the parties
`
`2819810
`
`2
` DEFENDANT MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT NEMER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`must appear unless all parties agree to submit to a late tentative ruling in which case the Court
`will adopt the late tentative ruling pursuant to subsection E above.” Section E, L.R. 8.3, states:
`“If no party appears, or if a party does not appear because the opposing party failed to give
`sufficient notice of intent to argue, then the tentative ruling will be adopted.” A party who fails to
`appear at the hearing is deemed to submit to the tentative ruling. However, no party may submit
`to a tentative ruling that specifies that a hearing is required. Parties may obtain a tentative
`ruling issued by the Law and Motion and Discovery Departments by telephoning (415) 551-
`4000 or visiting the court’s website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org and clicking the online
`services link. Changes in telephone numbers will appear in the official newspapers.
`
`
`Date: March 18, 2022
`
`EDLIN GALLAGHER HUIE + BLUM
`
`
`
`By: ____________________________________
` JESPER I. RASMUSSEN
` NWADIUTO C. AMAJOYI
` Attorneys for Defendant,
` Moath Yousef Izzat Nemer
`
`
`
`2819810
`
`3
` DEFENDANT MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT NEMER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`Re: Andrew Johnson v. Moath Yousef Izzat Nemer, et al.
`
`San Francisco County Superior Court Case No.: CGC-20-584157
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE—CCP § 1010.6 - 1013
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`I am a citizen of the United States and an employee in the County of Los Angeles. I am
`over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is
`EDLIN GALLAGHER HUIE + BLUM, 515 Flower Street, Suite 1020, Los Angeles, California
`90071.
`
`On March 18, 2022, I served the within:
`
`DEFENDANT MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT NEMER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF
`
`on the following parties:
`
`PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
`
`Anahit Avetisyan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
` X BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based upon agreement of the parties for service by
`electronic transmission, I caused said document(s) to be sent to the persons at the
`electronic mail addresses on the service list. I did not receive within a reasonable
`amount of time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that
`the transmission was not successful.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
`
`document is executed on March 18, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`Andrew Johnson v. Moath Yousef Izzat Nemer, et al.
`Our Client: MOATH YOUSEF IZZAT NEMER
`San Francisco County Superior Court Case No.: CGC-20-584157
`
`
`
`Megan Irish, Esq.
`Emile Davis, Esq.
`Katelyn Dembowski, Esq.
`Maricela Mendoza
`DOLAN LAW FIRM, PC
`1438 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`Telephone:
`(415) 421-2800
`Facsimile:
`(415) 421-2830
`Email:
`megan.irish@dolanlawfirm.com
`
`
`emile.davis@dolanlawfirm.com
`
`
`katelyn.dembowski@dolanlawfirm.com
`
`
`maricela.mendoza@dolanlawfirm.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew Johnson
`
`Beth Golub, Esq.
`Natasha Zaslove, Esq.
`Chris Maloney, Esq.
`WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
`655 Montgomery St., Ste. 900
`San Francisco, CA, 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 433-0990
`Facsimile:
`(415) 434-1370
`Email:
`beth.golub@wilsonelser.com
`
`natasha.zaslove@wilsonelser.com
`
`Chris.Maloney@wilsonelser.com
`
`
`christine.coopey@wilsonelser.com
`
`david.schwartz@wilsonelser.com
`foster.shi@wilsonelser.com
`Attorneys for Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC
`
`James R. Picker, Esq.
`PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES
`Employees of the Law Department
`State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
`4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450
`Pleasanton, CA 94588
`Telephone:
`(925) 225-6838
`Facsimile:
`(855) 732-9437
`Email:
`james.picker@statefarm.com
`cali.law-james-picker.108o02@statefarm.com
`Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Marie Altendahl
`
`
`2
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`