Miller v. American Greetings Corporation
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District Division of Eight
Cite as 2008 2062

California CA affirmed discovery ruling in auto accident case

Pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

In March 2004, Christopher Magdaleno, an installation supervisor of American Greetings Corporation, negligently hit Holly Miller with his pick-up truck while the latter stood next to her car on Huntington Drive, a major thoroughfare in South Pasadena.

She suffered severe injuries consequently, requiring surgery and two weeks’ hospitalization.

Two months later, Holly Miller and her husband, Paul Miller, sued Magdaleno before the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Several months later after learning some relevant facts from the deposition of Christopher Magdaleno, the couples amended their complaint and included RAI, Inc., doing business as American Greetings as defendant.

After the court have acquired jurisdiction to American Greetings Corporation, the latter moved for written interrogatories asking for facts supporting the Millers couple’s denials.  In addition, the said corporation served a request for admission on the Miller couples.

The requests for admission among other contained the following:

• the Miller couple to admit that the accident was not related to Magdaleno’s job,


• that Magdaleno was not acting within the scope of any employment with American Greetings Corporation,


• that the vehicle involved in the accident was a personal vehicle of Mr. Magdaleno,


• that Christopher Magdaleno was traveling on personal business, not related to the business of American Greetings Corporation

The request however was denied by the Miller couple, except for admitting respondent did not own Magdaleno’s pick-up truck.

In the meantime, the Miller couples answered the interrogatories, the gist of which says that:

• American Greetings was the employer of Christopher Magdaleno at the time this accident happened.


• That Mr. Magdaleno was within the course and scope of his employment at the time the accident.


• That Mr. Magdaleno was engaged in business that benefited American Greetings at the time this accident happened.


• That American Greetings is liable because their enterprise creates inevitable risks as part of doing business, one of which is that Mr. Magdaleno would have an automobile accident while driving his vehicle and conducting work either directly or indirectly on the cell phone.

American Greetings Corporation moved for summary judgment arguing that the Miller couple had no evidence that Magdaleno was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he injured Miller.

At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the court had made several rulings on several matters raised.  The court ultimately entered summary judgment for American Greetings Corporation.

Thereafter, after summary judgment American Greetings Corporation moved to recover its costs.

This was opposed by the Miller couple opposed the motion, arguing they had held a good faith belief they could prove Magdaleno caused the accident while working.

The court granted the motion to award costs based on the following reasons:

• The Miller Couples denial of the request for admission is unreasonable.


• That the Miller couples has no ground at all to believe that the defendant Magdaleno was acting within the scope and course of his employment at the time of the accident.


• The couple only had the hope that they would in some way disprove . . . Magdaleno’s testimony that he had taken the day off [from work] and was on the way to visit a probate attorney.”

The court awarded respondent $8,672 in legal fees incurred in securing summary judgment.

Holly and Paul Miller then appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District Division Eight from the summary judgment entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for American Greetings Corporation and the fee award.

They also appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County’ order awarding American Greetings Corporation its attorney fees for Millers’ refusal during discovery to admit certain matters.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District Division of Eight affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It however reverses the order awarding attorney’s fees.

In part, the Appellate court made the following conclusions:

• Where individual defendant testified that he was off work, driving his personal vehicle, and on his way to discuss a personal matter with a lawyer when accident occurred, co-defendant employer was entitled to summary judgment on ground that defendant was acting outside the scope of his employment.


• Evidence that defendant placed a cell phone call to a fellow employee who was at work during that period did not establish a triable issue of fact where there was unrefuted evidence that the call concluded at least eight minutes before the accident.


• Nor did defendant's poor recollection of the details of his meeting with the lawyer, the fact that he made other calls to fellow workers later in the day or the fact that he did not collect vacation or sick pay for the alleged day off--create a triable issue of fact.


• Award of sanctions against plaintiffs for refusing to admit that individual defendant was acting outside role and scope of employment at time of accident was an abuse of discretion where plaintiffs could have believed in good faith that defendant was using his personal vehicle to conduct business.