Molina v. Hot Wheels Trucking CA4/3

Filed 1/9/26 Molina v. Hot Wheels Trucking CA4/3




                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


         IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                  FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                               DIVISION THREE


 DELIA MOLINA,

       Plaintiff and Appellant,                                         G064771

           v.                                                           (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022-
                                                                        01255732)
 HOT WHEELS TRUCKING, INC.,
                                                                        OPINION
       Defendant and Respondent.



                   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Sandy N. Leal, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Law Offices of Timothy J. Donahue and Timothy J. Donahue for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
                   Lagasse Branch Bell + Kinkead, Zubin Farinpour, Rafayel
Aslanyan and Jeffrey Tsao for Defendant and Respondent.
            Plaintiff Delia Molina challenges the grant of summary judgment
for defendant Hot Wheels Trucking, Inc. on her wrongful death and
employment-related claims based on her late husband Eduardo’s work for
Hot Wheels.1 She contends there were triable issues on whether the company
caused Eduardo’s death and whether he was an employee, rather than an
independent contractor. She fails to show any error in the ruling. We affirm
the judgment.
                                    FACTS
            After Eduardo died of COVID-19 complications, Delia sued Hot
Wheels, asserting wrongful death, related claims, and various Labor Code
violations. She alleged the company negligently caused Eduardo to contract
the illness and misclassified him as an independent contractor.
            During discovery, Hot Wheels served 35 special interrogatories
seeking all facts supporting Delia’s claims. Delia responded with 35 identical
responses, consisting of blanket objections and the following statement:
“Defendants cause[d] the wrongful death of Eduardo Molina. Death resulted
from dangerous and wrongful conduct of defendants, in defendant’s
workplace. Defendants also failed and refused to pay wages and benefits.”
            Hot Wheels moved for summary judgment, contending Delia had
no evidence it had negligently caused Eduardo to contract COVID-19 and the
undisputed evidence showed he had been an independent contractor. Hot
Wheels presented evidence that Eduardo owned and operated his own truck,
was paid per load, set his own hours, could accept or decline work, and
maintained his own business license. It claimed the evidence satisfied the




            1 We respectfully use first names for clarity.



                                       2
conditions of Labor Code section 2776, meaning the Borello2 test determined
Eduardo’s employment classification.3 According to Hot Wheels, that analysis
established that Eduardo was an independent contractor.
            In opposition, Delia claimed Eduardo was misclassified under a
different test. She did not address Labor Code section 2776 or Borello. She
submitted her own declaration stating that “[t]here was a Covid outbreak at
work,” Hot Wheels “failed to protect [Eduardo],” and Eduardo “came home
from work sick.”
            The trial court granted summary judgment. It reasoned that
Delia had presented no evidence that Hot Wheel’s conduct caused Eduardo’s
death. And it concluded Eduardo had been an independent contractor as a
matter of law under Borello.
                                  DISCUSSION
            Summary judgment is complicated procedurally. Hot Wheels’s
separate statement of undisputed facts is 54 pages long. Delia’s response is
168 pages long. The legal issues raised by this motion—medical causation
and employment classification—are also complicated, both factually and
legally. We need guidance to navigate these choppy waters.
            Delia’s appellate briefing does not provide that guidance. It fails
to identify issues with appropriate headings. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(B).) And it mixes factual assertions, often without citation to the


            2 S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations

(1989) 

48 Cal.3d 341

 (Borello).

            3 Under Labor Code section 2776, if 12 specified conditions are

met, Borello governs employment classification in a business-to-business
contracting relationship. (Lab. Code, § 2776, subd. (a).) Borello itself
establishes a different, multifactor test. (Borello, supra, 

48 Cal.3d at p. 350

.)

                                        3
record, with conclusory legal contentions, often without citation to authority.
(See 

id.,

 rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C).) For example, on whether Eduardo was an
employee, Delia’s opening brief claims Borello was “the wrong case law”
without explaining why. Indeed, neither of her briefs even cites Labor Code
section 2776, which determines whether Borello applies. The opening brief
then makes a host of factual assertions without record citations or legal
analysis.4 These defects prevent meaningful appellate review and require
affirmance. (Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 

10 Cal.App.5th 172, 181

 [appellant
cannot satisfy burden without “complete and coherent headings and legal
arguments”].)
            Briefing deficiencies aside, we observe that Delia provided no
evidence that Hot Wheels had caused Eduardo’s illness. Her discovery
responses were conclusory. (See Casey v. Perini Corp. (2012) 

206 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1231

 [factually devoid discovery responses showed plaintiff could not
prove causation].) And her declaration was no better. She asserted, without
providing foundation, that Hot Wheels had “failed to protect” Eduardo from
an outbreak at work and speculated that he contracted the disease there. She
demonstrated no personal knowledge of these claimed facts and offered no
competent evidence of negligence. That is insufficient to defeat summary
judgment. (Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Assn. v. Superior Court (2021) 

70 Cal.App.5th 1

, 8 [opposing declaration must show personal knowledge].)

            4 The opening brief states: “The evidence before the court was

that Eduardo was a truck driver. Defendant was in the trucking business.
Eduardo drove truck for defendant. Defendant paid Eduardo to drive truck.
Eduardo drove to where he was told. Eduardo picked up, when he was told to
pick up. Eduardo did what he was told. There was no evidence that Eduardo
was involved in any other independent business. Employees were invited to
the bosses’ party, and Eduardo was invited there too—the obvious inference
is that he was an employee.”

                                       4
                              DISPOSITION
           The judgment is affirmed. Hot Wheels is entitled to its costs on
appeal.



                                         SCOTT, J.

WE CONCUR:



SANCHEZ, ACTING P. J.



BANCROFT, J.*

*Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.




                                     5


Case Details

Case Name: Molina v. Hot Wheels Trucking CA4/3

Court Name: California Court of Appeal

Date Published: Jan 9, 2026

Docket Number: G064771

Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.