Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV32670, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32670    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant City of Glendora’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2021, Plaintiff Jiosefina Rollice (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Glendora (“Defendant”) for liability pursuant to government code §§ 835.

On December 20, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On February 8, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on April 24, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for May 25, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court grant summary judgment as there is no dispute of material facts.

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.)

Government Code § 835 provides “[e]xcept as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; ¿or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests the Court grant summary judgment as Defendant does not own, control or maintain the subject property. Under Government Code § 835, a public entity is liable for injury cause by a dangerous condition of its property if the Plaintiff establishes certain elements. Plaintiff identified the location of the incident as a sidewalk on “Barranca Ave. between Arrow Highway and Gladstone St.,” in both the government claim and the complaint (SSUMF 2, 5.) At Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff identified the specific area of the sidewalk where she allegedly tripped. (SSUMF 19.) The identified section of the sidewalk is outside

Defendant’s city limits. (SSUMF 21-24.) Therefore, Defendant does not own, maintain or control the subject sidewalk. (SSUMF 25.) Defendant cannot be liable for a dangerous condition of a piece of property that Defendant does not own, control or maintain. The Court grants summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendant City of Glendora’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.