Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2021-00002319-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2021-00002319-CU-PO-CTL HE VS METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 08/16/2023

Defendant State of California (by and through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC))'s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to this motion. (ROA 554.) The Court has not considered North County Transit District's objections (ROA 551) as this motion is not against NCTD and is not opposed by Plaintiffs.

In ruling on a summary judgment, the trial court must first identify the issues framed by the pleadings, since the pleadings set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved, and the materiality of disputed facts.

(Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250; Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 289-90; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 858.) The court then determines whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor, and if the moving party has carried its initial burden, decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Serri, supra, at p. 858.) The Court must '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.) CPCU moves for summary judgment on the Complaint, which asserts two causes of action against CPUC: (i) dangerous condition of public property; and (ii) negligence. Generally, Plaintiffs allege on February 18, 2020, Wentian Zheng and his wife Shuxia He returned home on a trolley. After disembarking the trolley at the Washington Street Station, Mr. Zheng was struck and killed by a Pacific Surfliner Amtrak train. At the time, the location had numerous dangerous conditions, creating a risk of serious bodily injury and/or death to pedestrians and Defendants failed to adequately warn pedestrians of the serious danger and/or take other necessary safety measures.

Plaintiffs have not: (i) filed an opposition to this motion; (ii) disputed any of the evidence; (iii) produced any evidence; (iv) filed a separate statement; nor (v) argued CPUC is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Despite these failures, a party moving for summary judgment always has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that there is no triable issue of material fact. (C.C.P., § 437c(p).) This burden is not affected by the sufficiency of any opposition to the motion. (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc.

(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) The Court reviewed the claims alleged and the evidence, particularly the declarations of Samantha Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2980691  35 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HE VS METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM [IMAGED]  37-2021-00002319-CU-PO-CTL Cooper, Matthew Bond and Kevin Schumacher. With regard to the dangerous condition of public property claim, CPUC met its initial burden and sufficiently explained how it did not own or control the property. (Gov. Code, §§ 830(c), 835; Huffman v. City of Poway (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 975, 990 [elements]; Public Utilities Com. V. Sup. Ct. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 364 (holding regulatory authority over railroad crossings does not constitute 'control' required under Government Code section 830 to create liability for alleged dangerous conditions at a railroad crossing); e.g., UMF 7, 28-33, citing Cooper Decl., at ¶¶ 1-6; Schumacher Decl., at ¶ 4; Bond Decl., at ¶ 14.) With regard to the negligence cause of action, CPUC met its burden of showing how the negligence cause of action against it is not an actionable theory against CPUC. (Complaint, at ¶¶ 63-64.) A public entity is not liable for an injury arising out of an act or omission of the public entity or its employees except as provided by statute. (Summerfield v. City of Inglewood (Oct. 25, 2023, No. B324117) 2023 WL 7012652, at *8, citing Gov. Code, § 815(a).)'In other words, direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714.' (Ibid., citing Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1127.) Thus, CPUC established facts justifying a judgment in its favor on the Complaint. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.

Concluding Orders For these reasons, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant State of California is entitled to judgment in its favor.

CPUC is ordered to: (i) prepare and submit a judgment of dismissal; and (ii) if the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, serve notice of this ruling on all appearing parties by November 7, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2980691  35