Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV40861, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40861    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Shigeta America Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff Rebecca Sundling (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Shigeta America Inc. (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability. 

On December 23, 2020, Defendant filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1-20 for implied equitable indemnity, contribution, negligence and declaratory relief. 

On June 30, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on February 3, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for January 19, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment as Plaintiff has admitted that Defendant was not negligent.

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

On July 19, 2021, Defendant served Request for Admissions, Set One, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide any responses, nor did Plaintiff request an extension. Defendant filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted, which the Court granted on April 20, 2022.

With the request for admissions admitted, Plaintiff admitted that Defendant was not negligent for the incident, did not contribute to the cause of the incident, and did not cause any injuries in the incident. (UMF 1-3.) Plaintiff further admitted there was no dangerous condition, the condition in question was not created by Defendant, and did not have actual or constructive notice of the subject condition. (UMF 3-6.)

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 Defendant was a cause of any injury. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Shigeta America Inc.’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.