Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV14001, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14001    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Summary Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff Rose Ann Fernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Long Beach (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”) and L&S Property LLC (“L&S”) for general negligence and premises liability. 

On April 19, 2021, the City and County filed answers. 

On May 13, 2022, the Court dismissed L&S without prejudice. 

On August 22, 2022, the County filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on March 16, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for June 30, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

The County requests the Court grant summary judgment on the basis that there is no dispute of material fact.

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 § 911.2 states: “(a) A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.”

DISCUSSION

On April 19, 2021, the County served Request for Admissions, Set One, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide any responses, nor did Plaintiff request an extension. The County filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted, which the Court granted on July 5, 2022.

With the request for admissions admitted, Plaintiff admitted that the County was not negligent in any way toward Plaintiff and no action or omission from the County represented a substantial factor in any injuries sustained by Plaintiff.

In order to establish an action for negligence or premises liability, a plaintiff must show defendant had a legal duty, breached said duty, and as a result of that breach, legally or proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. In admitting the above, Plaintiff cannot provide evidentiary support that the County was the cause of any injury OR that the County breached any duty. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION
           Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.            
           Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

           The
Court advances and vacates the April 7, 2023, hearing on its Order to Show Cause
why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
sections 581(g), 583.210, and 583.250. 

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.