Foremost Insurance Company v. Miller-Phelan, Inc., et al.

(34) Tentative Ruling

Re: Breazeale v. Miller-Phelan, Inc., et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG01093

Foremost Insurance Company v. Miller-Phelan, Inc., et al. Superior Court Case No. 25CECG01570

Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 (Dept. 503)

Motion: (1) by Defendant Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. for Summary Judgment

(2) by Foremost Insurance Company to Consolidate

Tentative Ruling:

To grant defendant Harley-Davidson Motor Company’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant is directed to submit to this court, within 10 days of service of the minute order, a proposed judgment consistent with the court’s summary judgment order.

To deny Foremost Insurance Company’s motion to consolidate, without prejudice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).)

Explanation:

Motion for Summary Judgment

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court must “consider all of the evidence' and all of the 'inferences' reasonably drawn there from and must view such evidence and such inferences 'in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) In making this determination, courts usually follow a three-prong analysis: identifying the issues as framed by the pleadings; determining whether the moving party has established facts negating the opposing party's claims and justifying judgment in the movant's favor; and determining whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493.)

The moving party bears the burden of showing the court that the plaintiff 'has not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish, a prima facie case ... .' [Citation.]" (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460.) Furthermore, “[t]o avoid summary judgment, admissible evidence presented to the trial court, not merely claims or theories, must reveal a triable, material factual issue. [Citations.] Moreover, the opposition to summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation.” (Wiz Technology, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.) In essence, if the party opposing summary judgment relies on inferences, those inferences

decedent’s accident. Speculation as to the relationship between the volume of replacement clamps distributed and the hoses to which they attach will not support the conclusion that the clamp was defective or that more warranty claims regarding failure of spring clamps must exist but have not been produced in discovery. Speculation that a design change in the coolant line assembly clamp means there are documents regarding the change that have not been produced in discovery is insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment. (Sullivan Decl., ¶¶ 16-201.)

Plaintiffs request a continuance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h) for additional depositions of defendant’s employees regarding notice, defect, and causation. Counsel suggests defendant is withholding relevant warranty claims from discovery that would support their theory of an inadequately sealed connection at the oil hose progressively worsens from a seep to a full detachment. (Yoka Decl., ¶ 4.) Counsel’s theory is not consistent with the undisputed facts of this case where the oil seeping appeared only after modifications performed by Cycle Masters, Inc. and the detachment occurred within days of the initial oil seepage. (UMF Nos. 18-22, 24.)

Plaintiff’s additional facts indicate the subject spring clamp was never detached during the modifications performed by Cycle Masters, Inc. and was secure at the conclusion of their work. (AMF Nos. 56-60, 66.) There is no evidence to suggest there was progressive wear on the clamp at issue. It does not appear from the affidavit that the further discovery sought to pursue this new theory of progressive wear on the clamp is consistent with the undisputed facts of the case and therefore necessary to oppose this motion.

Plaintiffs’ opposition is limited to inferences and speculation that additional evidence to support the existence of a defect in the use of a spring clamp is being withheld by defendant. These inferences are unsupported by the evidence that the spring clamp at issue was confirmed to have been secure in the days before the incident giving rise to the complaint. The court finds plaintiffs have not met their burden to raise a dispute of material fact. As a result, Defendant Harley-Davidson’s motion for summary judgment of the entire complaint against it is granted.

Motion to Consolidate

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C) requires the moving party to file the Notice of Motion to Consolidate in both cases proposed to be consolidated. The supporting memorandum of points and authorities, declarations and other supporting papers only need to be filed in the lower-numbered case. Here, Foremost Insurance Company neglected to file the Notice of Motion in case no. 25CECG01570 as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).) Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Application to Seal

The court is aware of defendant Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc.’s application to seal certain documents filed with the opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The application states that it will be heard on August 26, 2026, however this

1 Defendant’s objection no. 9 to paragraphs 16 through 20 of the Sullivan declaration is

sustained. 6