Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV16228, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16228    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs’s Motion for Summary Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff Rodolphus Lee Hayden (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs (“Ralphs”), The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”) and Ernie for negligence and premises liability.

On September 9, 2021, Ralphs filed an answer.

On November 30, 2022, Ralphs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on February 17, 2023.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement of the Entire Case.

Trial is currently set for July 31, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Ralphs requests the Court grant summary judgment.

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.)  Premises liability relies upon the same elements as negligence.

A land possessor owes no duty to protect against third-party criminal assaults absent prior similar incidents which would give rise to a high degree of foreseeability. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666.) The requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at 679.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff recently filed a notice of conditional settlement of entire case. The Court continues the hearing on the motion, in order to preserve the MSJ hearing in case the settlement conditions are not satisfied. Parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to determine a new MSJ date.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs’s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED. Parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to set the new MSJ hearing date.

            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.