Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00033, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00033    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 03/15/2024 – 8:30am

Case No:   23GDCV00033
Trial Date: 09/23/2024

Case Name: KNARIK GHARAKHANIAN v. GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER; CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.

[DEFENDANT’S MSJ/MSA] 

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Knarik Gharakhanian, filed a Complaint on 01/06/2023 against Defendants, Glendale Adventist Medical Center and Cornerstone Construction Group, Inc. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges two causes of action – (1) Premises Liability and (2) General Negligence. Plaintiff alleges that while they were in Defendant, Glendale Adventist Health Center’s, place of business as a patron, active construction work was conducted by Cornerstone Construction, and Plaintiff tripped over an object on the floor which caused Plaintiff to fall.

On 05/04/2023, Defendant, Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On 06/02/2023, Defendant, Cornerstone Construction Group, Inc., filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On 06/02/2023, Defendant, Cornerstone Construction Group, Inc., filed a Cross-Complaint against Chapala Concrete, Inc. alleging six causes of action for: (1) Equitable Indemnity, (2) Apportionment, (3) Contribution, (4) Total Indemnity, (5) Declaratory Relief, and (6) Negligence.

On 08/07/2023, Cross-Defendant, Chapala Concrete, Inc., filed an Answer to Cornerstone’s Cross-Complaint.

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Defendant, Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale (AHGL), moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, Knarik Gharakhanian.

This Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint has no merit and fails to present any triable issues of material fact against moving Defendant in that Plaintiff has admitted (1) Defendant AHGL was not negligent towards Plaintiff, (2) no act or omission to act on the part of Defendant AHGL was a substantial factor in any injuries Plaintiff is claiming in this matter, and (3) there are no facts to support Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant AHGL allowed a dangerous condition to exist on the premises that contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.

This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed concurrently herewith, the Declaration of Kylie A. Schofield, Esq, upon all papers and pleadings on file in this action and upon such other and further oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing on this motion.”

PROCEDURAL

Moving Party: Defendant, Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale (AHGL)

Responding Party:  No Opposition submitted

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Separate Statement; Proposed Order; Schofield Declaration; Proposed Judgment; Evidence filed in support of MSJ;

Opposing Papers: No Opposition submitted

Reply Papers: Notice of Non-Receipt of Plaintiff’s Opposition

75/80 Days
Under CCP § 437c(2), notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days. (CCP §437c(a)(2).)

As to the 75-day timeliness requirement, Defendant’s motion is timely.

However, CCP § 437c(a)(2) also requires the motion and supporting papers to be served on all other parties to the action.

As to service upon the Plaintiff, Defendant served Plaintiff via electronic transmission at henrik@sardlaw.com. On eCourt, Plaintiff’s counsel’s email address is noted as attorneyservice@usaexpressinc.com. The Court will have to hear argument as to why Defendant did not serve Plaintiff’s counsel at the email address listed for Plaintiff’s counsel on eCourt. This could be fatal to Defendant’s motion for lack of notice to Plaintiff. The notice of Non-Opposition submitted by Defendant suffers from the same service issue.

As to service upon non-moving Defendant, Cornerstone, service appears to be proper.

As to Cross-Defendant Chapala Concrete, moving Defendant did not serve Cross-Defendant’s counsel at the email address listed on eCourt. While Cross-Defendant is not relevant to the complaint in which Defendant is moving on since Defendant is moving against Plaintiff with respect to the Complaint, CCP §437c(a)(2) still requires notice to all other parties in the action. Moving Defendant is to address this service issue.

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.)

“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.)

CCP § 437c (a) provides that “a party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” The motion shall be granted if all the papers submitted 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. (CCP § 437c(c).)

In determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable issue as to any material fact. (Id.)

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.)

“A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP §437c(p)(2).) 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.)

TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges two causes of action, the first cause of action for premises liability and the second for general negligence.

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence. (Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1207 citing Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998)

Accordingly, the plaintiff must prove a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. (Awad,, 39 Cal.App.5th at 1207 citing Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568, 573.)

“Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission for purposes of the pending action, unless the court permits a withdrawal or amendment of the admission under section 2033.300. (§ 2033.410 (a).)

A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only with leave of court granted after notice to all parties. (§ 2033.300, subd. (a).)” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1418.)

Defendant states that on 10/27/2023 the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and deemed the requests admitted.

In Defendant’s motion, Defendant then argues:

Here, Plaintiff, Knarik Gharakhanian has admitted that Defendant AHGL was not negligent towards her. Plaintiff, Knarik Gharakhanian, has admitted that no act or omission to act on behalf of Defendant AHGL was a substantial factor in the injuries Plaintiff is alleging. Plaintiff has admitted Defendant AHGL did not allow a dangerous condition to exist on the premises that gave rise to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Therefore, Plaintiff Knarik Gharakhanian is incapable of meeting her burden of proof as a matter of law to maintain either of her causes of action in this matter and summary judgment must be granted.

(Def. Mot. p. 6., emph. in original.)

As can be seen on page 6 of Defendant’s motion, as cited above, Defendant does not explain clearly which element or elements Plaintiff cannot establish in each cause of action in the Complaint.  

Further, as can be seen on page 6 of Defendant’s motion, as cited above, Defendant does not cite the evidence that supports its conclusions.

Defendant’s separate statement is equally as unhelpful.

The first cause of action in the Complaint is for premises liability. The second cause of action in the Complaint is for General Negligence.

Defendant’s Separate Statement includes two issues. Issue 1 is titled, “GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER dba ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE WAS NOT NEGLIGENT NOR ALLOWED A DANGEROUS CONDITION TO EXIST ON ITS PREMISES.”

Issue 2 is titled, “PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM OF PREMISE LIABILITY MUST FAIL AS THERE WAS NO BREACH OF DUTY TO PLAINTIFF CAUSING HER ALLEGE INJURIES.”

As to Issue 1, it is unclear if Defendant is directing this issue to the second cause of action for negligence, or if Issue 1 is something that applies to both causes of action in the Complaint.

“The Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a motion must separately identify: (A)  Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion; and (B)  Each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.” (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(d)(1)(A)-(B).)

It is unclear if Issue 1 is identifying a cause of action, an issue of duty, or an affirmative defense.

Further, in the separate statement, Issue 1 contains undisputed material facts (UMF) numbered 1-5, and Issue 2 contains UMF numbered 6-10.

As to the evidence cited in the separate statement, the most specific Defendant gets with citing its evidence is “Exhibit A,” “Exhibit B,” or “Exhibit C.”

“The separate statement must be in the two-column format specified in (h). The statement must state in numerical sequence the undisputed material facts in the first column followed by the evidence that establishes those undisputed facts in that same column. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(3), emph. added.)

Here, Defendant does not properly cite its evidence.

As an example, Exhibit B is frequently cited throughout Defendant’s separate statement. Exhibit B is Requests for Admission, Set One. Not once in Defendant’s separate statement does Defendant cite to the specific request for admission that allegedly supports each undisputed material fact in the separate statement. While CRC 3.1350(d)(3) does not necessarily require citation to each request for admission, Defendant most definitely did not comply with CRC 3.1350(d)(3) because it failed to reference the page and line numbers of each exhibit supporting the purported undisputed material fact.

The Court will hear argument from Defendant. Defendant would need to address the two service issues that the Court pointed out in its procedural section. Further, Defendant would need to explain which element, or elements, Plaintiff cannot establish in each cause of action in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff would need to explain which piece of evidence establishes that Plaintiff cannot establish an element, or elements, in each cause of action.