Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV13780, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV13780    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant TK Elevator Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff Mario Vargas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Kilroy Realty Corporation (“Kilroy”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant TK Elevator Corporation (“TKE”).

On January 29, 2021, Kilroy filed its answer and a Cross-Complaint against TKE for implied indemnity, express indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief and duty to defend. On June 29, 2021, TKE answered the Cross-Complaint. 

On May 4, 2021, TKE filed its answer and a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 50 for indemnity. 

On May 9, 2022, TKE filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on October 14, 2022. The Court continued the motion to March 14, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for May 9, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

TKE requests the Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment as there is no dispute as to 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 Section 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.)

‘The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are “(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” ’ ” (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 309, 911 P.2d 496].)

“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.)

DISCUSSION

TKE’s motion for summary judgment is predicated on the belief that the June 21, 2022, Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted would be granted, resulting in Plaintiff admitting to multiple admissions that would prevent TKE from being liable. However, in reviewing the Court’s record, the Court finds that the Court did not deem the admissions granted; rather the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the request for admissions by July 25, 2022. No further motion work has been filed to reflect that Plaintiff did not serve responses. No opposition or supplemental documentation has been filed to reflect whether Plaintiff served responses. Given that there is no evidentiary basis for a majority of the facts presented, the Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant TK Elevator Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

            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.