Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Defendant State of California, Department of Transportations (Caltrans) motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.
This is a consolidated action arising from a multi-vehicle motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 21, 2021. In their first amended complaint, Plaintiffs Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao and Tylor Christopher West (collectively, Plaintiffs) allege that they were driving southbound on the SR- 99, approximately 817 feet north of Arno Road (Road), at the time of the accident. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), ¶ 16.) Defendant Sharif Davlatberki (Davlatberki) was driving southbound on the Road directly behind Plaintiffs in a 2016 Freight Tractor Truck.
Davlatberki failed to stop and collided into Plaintiffs vehicle at a high rate of speed. (FAC, ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs allege that CalTrans and Defendant the County of Sacramento (County) owned, controlled, or maintained the Road. (FAC, ¶ 21.) As against Caltrans, Plaintiffs assert a single cause of action for dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiffs allege:
At all relevant times, SR-99, approximate 817 feet north of Arno Road, in unincorporated Sacramento County, State of California, was in a dangerous and defective condition due to the negligence of Defendants County, Caltrans, and Does 26 through 50, and each of them and their employees. Specifically, construction on the SR-99 caused an unsafe buildup of traffic because of the lack of adequate warnings, lighting, and traffic controls. Defendants County, Caltrans, and Does 26 through 50 were negligent in creating the dangerous condition.
(FAC, ¶ 50.)
Trial is scheduled for August 24, 2026.
Caltrans moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication on the following grounds:
1. Defendant Caltrans is Entitled to Judgment in its Favor as Plaintiffs Cannot Establish the Essential Elements of Their Cause of Action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property.
2. Defendant Caltrans is Entitled to Judgment in its Favor Because the Negligence of Sharif Davlatberki was the Sole Cause of the Vehicle Collision.
(Amended Notice of Motion, 2:12-15.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Legal Standard
34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process.
First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. The court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Roth v.
Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendants motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)
Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiffs cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2)].)
Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or affirmative defense claimed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p); see, generally, Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.)
Finally, in ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 843.) Summary judgment is properly granted only if the moving partys evidence establishes that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. (Lipson v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374.)
Analysis
Caltrans relies on the following undisputed material facts:
1. The subject vehicle collision occurred on May 21, 2021 at or around 10:15 p.m. in the southbound lanes of State Route 99, about 800ft north of Arno Road.
2. Caltrans is the owner of the stretch of highway on State Route (hereinafter SR) 99 southbound.
3. On May 21, 2021, the construction project included a striping operation at post mile (PM) 5.0, between Station S1 118+00 AM, equivalent to PM 4.5, and Station S1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54
117+50, which was equal to PM 5.7.
4. On May 21, 2021, the subject vehicle collision occurred between Stations 200+00 to 250+00 PM 6.00, 817 North of Arno Road, at PM 6.50.
5. Sharif Davlatberki drove his vehicle at an unsafe speed in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22350.
Caltrans argues that based on the above UMFs, Plaintiffs cannot establish the elements for dangerous condition of public property because: (1) they cannot establish that Caltrans created a dangerous condition since traffic congestion is not a dangerous condition; (2) there is no evidence of proximate causation since the construction took place 1.5 miles away from the collision site and traffic congestion is not a dangerous condition; and (3) no condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred, rather Davlatberkis negligence was the sole cause of the collision.
The Court finds that Caltrans has satisfied its initial burden to demonstrate that no triable issue of material fact exists. By failing to oppose the motion, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their burden to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
This minute order is effective immediately. Caltrans shall prepare a formal order and proposed judgment of dismissal of Caltrans only pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(g).
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54
telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.
Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.