Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV37886, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV37886 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: 28
Motion for Summary Judgment
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of an alleged physical assault and battery of Plaintiff Hector Pinedo (Hector) on the campus of Valley High School in September 2019. The complaint filed on October 1, 2020 alleges that Hector’s sister and co-Plaintiff, D.P., watched Hector’s assault and battery while school security guards employed by Defendant Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (Defendant) failed to intervene. D.P. is a minor represented by her guardian ad litem Valerie Bustamante. The complaint states causes of action for (1) vicarious liability of public employees, (2) negligent supervision, (3) failure to follow mandatory duties established by law, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Trial is set for June 13, 2023.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment on September 16, 2022, arguing (1) Defendant owes no duty to Plaintiffs to prevent the incident, (2) Defendant did not breach any alleged duty owed to Plaintiffs; and (3) there is no evidence that any action or inaction of Defendant caused Plaintiffs alleged damages.
Defendant summarizes its argument as follows: “[Defendant] does not have a duty to prevent the altercation between Hector and [the other student]. Simply because a fight occurred during school hours does not establish claims for negligent supervision of the students or negligent hiring, training, supervision or retention of [Defendant’s] employees. [citation] This incident involves a sudden and unexpected physical altercation between two high school students. There was no indication that a physical altercation would occur between the two students and the incident was not foreseeable. In addition, [Defendant] did not breach any alleged duty owed to the Plaintiffs. [Defendant] acted with ordinary care under the circumstances, providing a reasonable and appropriate security and safety plan on campus. Finally, there is no evidence to support a finding that any action or inaction of [Defendant] caused [Hector’s] injuries. The altercation took place during the three minute passing period and the entire altercation lasted le s [sic] than 45 seconds. The school had implemented a supervision and security plan which included two security officers near the location of the incident to monitor the small campus. The security officers and staff responded to the altercation withing [sic] seconds. However, due to the short duration of the fight, the security team was unable to prevent the altercation. As a result, Plaintiff cannot establish causation. [citation]” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 3-4.)
Plaintiffs contend in their opposition that “[t]here is no question that [Defendant] had a duty to Plaintiffs – school districts owe a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising students. [citation] As explained below, the district breached its mandatory duty to adequately supervise students on Valley High School’s campus, specifically during passing periods between classes, which led to the subject fight between Plaintiff Hector Pinedo and [the other student]. There were clear signs that the interaction between the boys was escalating, and the security guards had adequate time to intervene. Their failure to timely intervene on such a small campus was plainly negligent.” (Plaintiffs’ Opposition p. 5.)
In its reply, Defendant argues, “The undisputed material facts establish that the fight between Manny and Hector was not foreseeable. Even assuming Plaintiffs' allegation that Manny and Hector were arguing, the security guards acted with ordinary care under the circumstances and there is no evidence that roaming the campus would have prevented the incident.” (Defendant’s Reply, p. 2.)
OBJECTIONS
The Court overrules Defendant’s objections one and two to Plaintiff’s evidence and objections one, two, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen to the Declaration of Robert Fraisse. The Court sustains Defendant’s objections three, four, five, and eighteen to the Declaration of Robert Fraisse.
The Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objection contained in Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Opposition and reminds Plaintiffs objections should be made separately from a separate statement.
LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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.)
“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) “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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)
“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Each of Plaintiffs’ causes of actions is based in negligence. In order to state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) If Defendant establishes there is no triable issue of material fact to any of these elements, the Court must grant the motion for summary judgment.
Existence of a Duty
The first argument of Defendant’s motion is that the undisputed facts demonstrate Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty. It appears both sides agree a school district can owe a duty to students. (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 6; Plaintiffs’ Opposition p. 5.)
Here, the parties agree that Hector was a student at the time of the altercation, that the altercation happened at school, that the altercation occurred during school hours, and that the school is part of Defendant. (UMF ¶ 3, 1, 2, 4.)
But Defendant further argues that school districts only owe a duty regarding a “foreseeable risk of harm.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 6.) Plaintiffs do not appear to disagree. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the assault and battery were foreseeable. First, Plaintiffs argue that “fighting is a predictable and foreseeable event on every high school campus.” (Plaintiffs’ Opposition p. 6.) Then, Plaintiffs contend this specific fight was foreseeable because the involved students raised their voices, other students were watching, and the involved students body language and physical actions indicated an impending fight. (UMF ¶ 14, 16; AMF ¶ 26-30.) Defendant disagrees, stating the actions of “[the other student] and Hector do not establish foreseeability as it relates to the element of duty. (Defendant’s Reply p. 3, internal quotation marks omitted.) But considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the nonmoving party, the Court finds a triable issue of fact whether the fight was foreseeable, and Defendant could owe a duty.
Breach of Duty
The second argument of Defendant’s motion is that the undisputed facts demonstrate Defendant did not breach a duty it owed. Both sides agree that when school districts owe students a duty, the duty is one of “reasonable care” or “ordinary prudence.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 6, 7, 8; Plaintiffs’ Opposition p. 5.)
Here, Defendant makes a twofold argument. First, Defendant argues “[t]here is no evidence that [Defendant] was made aware of the impending altercation.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 8, citing UMF ¶ 21-24.) Second, Defendant argues it “had implemented an appropriate security and supervision plan on campus.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 8, citing UMF ¶ 5-13.)
For the element of breach, Plaintiffs focus their argument on the issue of supervision. Plaintiff contend that Defendant’s security guards’ supervision of campus was ineffective and that they failed to immediately respond. (AMF ¶ 37.) Plaintiffs allege the security guards were about 75 feet closer than what Defendant claims, and that the failure to respond even more quickly was “inexplicable and unacceptable.” (AMF ¶ 40; UMF ¶ 9; Plaintiffs’ Opposition p. 7.) Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds a triable issue of fact as to breach.
Causation
The third argument of Defendant’s motion is that the undisputed facts demonstrate Defendant’s action or inaction caused Plaintiffs’ damages. Defendant repeats the assertion that it had no way of knowing the fight would occur. (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 10, citing UMF ¶ 21-24, 14-16.) Defendant also notes the whole altercation took no more than 45 seconds and that the involved students were separated by security guards. (UMF ¶ 20, 18-19.)
Plaintiffs only cite to inadmissible evidence from the Declaration of Robert Fraisse to demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to causation. (Plaintiffs’ Opposition p. 8; AMF ¶ 44.) Even when considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court does not find a triable issue of fact as to causation.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
In the future, Plaintiffs are requested to cite to the undisputed material facts and additional material facts, not the evidence directly, in their briefs.
Additionally, Defendant is requested to refer to Plaintiff, D.P., by her initials.
Moving party to give notice.