Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV35233, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35233    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOVING PAPERS

1.      Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

2.      Declaration of Emily Doty

3.      Declaration of Ommid Ferdows

4.      Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

OPPOSITION PAPERS

1.      Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

2.      Separate Statement of Disputed Facts in Opposition

3.      Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Evidence

4.      Declaration of Analicia Avila

5.      Declaration of Payman Heravi

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff Payman Heravi (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, 19923 Ventura LLC, and Does 1 to 50 for premises liability after he tripped on a sidewalk. In pertinent part, Plaintiff alleges that the fall took place in front of 19923-19927 Ventura Boulevard, Woodland Hills, California. (Complaint ¶ 11.) He also alleges that Defendant 19923 Ventura LLC (Ventura) “owned, operated, possessed, controlled, maintained, cleaned, repaired, managed, supervised and/or otherwise held sufficient custody and /or control of the premises.” (Complaint ¶ 35.)

Ventura now moves for summary judgment arguing there is no dispute of material facts towards Plaintiff’s second cause of action for premises liability. Plaintiff opposes.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP § 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”  (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)  

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION

Plaintiff’s objection to the Declaration of Ommid Ferdows, paragraph 4 is sustained.        

DISCUSSION

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are: (1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of that duty; and (3) harm to the plaintiff caused by that breach. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142; see McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

Therefore, to prevail on a claim for premises liability, Plaintiff must prove: (1) defendant owned or controlled the subject property; (2) defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; (3) plaintiff was harmed; and (4) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (See Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.)

Plaintiff alleges that he tripped and fell due to a defect on the public sidewalk in front of Defendant’s property at 19927 Ventura Boulevard. (UMF 1, 2.) However, Defendant argues that Plaintiff testified that his fall occurred directly across the street from the Woodland Hills Market. (UMF 3.) Defendant then argues that it did not own, possess, or control the vacant lot across from the Woodland Hills Market. (UMF 5.)

The evidence presented does not support Defendant’s material fact number 3. Plaintiff did not testify that his fall occurred “directly across the street from the Woodland Hills Market.” Rather, Plaintiff testified that “on the other side of the street there is a market called Woodland Hills Market.” (Heravi Depo. 21:12-19.) Defendant has not met its burden.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Defendant 19923 Ventura LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

            Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.