CATT, TODD MICHAEL vs RENTERIA, MARCOS, JR

factual dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law. The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that the memorandum in opposition to the motion has arguments which do not appear to pertain to this case. In his separate statement, Plaintiff disputed UMF Nos. 8, 11, 15, and 16. (UMF No. 12 is also disputed, but that raises a minor issue that is not critical to deciding this motion.) All of Plaintiff's disputed facts rely on the same set of evidence: Exhibit A, p. 37:20-23, and pp. 46:21-47:3. The cited portions state as follows: 20 Q.· · Ms. McCoy, how long was the green Mustang 21· traveling behind you on Oakdale-Waterford Highway on 22· the date of the incident? 23· · · ·A.· · For about two or -- two minutes. *** 21 Q.· · And when law enforcement arrived, did you 22· give them a statement? 23· · · ·A.· · Yes. 24· · · ·Q.· · And what was that statement? 25· · · ·A.· · I said he was driving behind me, and he 1· was merging in and out of traffic -- or in and out 2· from around me trying to see how to pass.· And the 3· third time he passed, he hit the lady and my car.

Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to UMF Nos. 8, 11, 15, and 16 are as follows: - For both UMF Nos. 8 and 15, Plaintiff contends, "Plaintiff attempted to pass the Defendant driver several times, but her actions prevented Plaintiff from passing safely;" - For UMF No. 11, Plaintiff states, "Defendant was driving slower than the actual speed limit, and was impeding traffic, and the Plaintiff from passing safely;" and - For UMF No. 16, Plaintiff asserts, "Defendant could have pulled over to the side to allow traffic to proceed. Nothing prevented the Defendant from safely pulling over to allow Plaintiff safely pass."

The cited evidence does not adequately support any of these assertions. Specifically, the deposition passages do not show that it was Defendant's actions that prevented Plaintiff from passing safely; that Defendant McCoy was driving slower than the speed limit; that Defendant McCoy was impeding traffic; or that there was nothing preventing Defendant McCoy from safely pulling over to allow Plaintiff to pass.

Because the Plaintiff's statement of disputed facts lacks material evidentiary support, the Court deems Moving Defendants' statement of facts undisputed. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

The Court notes that Plaintiff included his own deposition as evidence but never cited to it. If the inclusion was an implicit invitation for the Court to review the deposition testimony for triable issues, the Court declines that invitation.

The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion. In addition, Moving Defendants are instructed to submit a proposed judgment within five court days. All future dates are vacated and a Case Status Review is set for October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept.

21. That date will be vacated upon signing of the judgment.

CV-24-006618 - CATT, TODD MICHAEL vs RENTERIA, MARCOS, JR - Defendant's Motion to Strike Amendments to Complaint Based on Lack of Good Faith, Abuse of Process, and Collusive Misrepresentation - CONTINUED to September 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. to be heard with the Motion for Protective Order.

CV-26-006055 - THOMAS, ATORINA vs STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC - Petitioner's Verified