Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV14205, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14205    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Elizabeth Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) for damages relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall on Defendant’s property.  Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 17, 2018, as soon as she entered a steam room on Defendant’s property, she slipped on the slippery floor, severely injuring herself.  The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability against Defendant. 

Defendant now moves for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication, against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.   

It is unclear whether Defendant’s motion is directed at Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on April 13, 2020, or at Plaintiff’s FAC filed on July 16, 2020.  The original Complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and failure to warn, while the FAC includes claims only for negligence and premises liability.  Defendant’s notice of motion provides that the motion is “based on the ground that Plaintiff cannot establish all essential elements of any of her causes of action set forth in the Complaint” and separately moves for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and failure to warn, as stated in the original complaint.  (Mot. at p. 2:10-24.)  Further, Defendant requests that judicial notice be taken of the original complaint in connection with the motion.  However, Defendant’s undisputed material fact number 21 in its separate statement provides, “On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint that has three causes of action against EQUINOX: general negligence, premises liability, and failure to warn.”  Although this material fact contains the incorrect filing date of the FAC, it seemingly acknowledges Plaintiff did in fact file the FAC.[1] 

An amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints.  (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1130-31.)  The amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment.  (Id.)  However, the Court notes that the allegations pertaining to the claims for negligence and premises liability in Plaintiff’s original complaint and in the FAC are identical, including the numeration of the paragraphs and the prayer for damages.  The only difference between the two pleadings is that the FAC omits the third cause of action for failure to warn, and thus, the FAC essentially serves as a dismissal of the failure to warn claim.  There are no substantive changes between the original complaint and the FAC.  Consequently, concerning the causes of action for negligence and premises liability, the issues presented by Defendant’s summary judgment motion remain the same whether addressed under the original complaint or the FAC, which is supported by the fact that Plaintiff’s opposition addresses the merits of Defendant’s contentions regarding the negligence and premises liability claims.  Denying the motion without prejudice for the parties to merely re-file the same papers with the same evidence and arguments would seem to be an inefficient use of the parties’ and the Court’s resources. 

Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer as to whether an agreement can be reached that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is directed at the FAC.  If the parties agree that it is, the Court will continue the hearing briefly and set the matter for argument. 

If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the motion will be denied without prejudice.  However, because the issues are already fully briefed, the Court will specially set a hearing date for a renewed motion for summary judgment by Defendant to be heard based on the current trial date.

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 5^th day of December 2022