Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21STCV42035, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42035    Hearing Date: October 27, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Parodi et al. v. Wollman et al., Case No. 21STCV42035

Hearing Date October 27, 2023

Defendants Wollman’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Plaintiffs allege defendant next-door neighbors’ purple exterior wall tints the light shining into their home, causing plaintiffs to suffer headaches and rendering the home uninhabitable.

Evidentiary objections

Plaintiffs’ objections OVERRULED.

Defendants’ objections OVERRULED.

MSJ Analysis

Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs have no right to unobstructed natural light. Plaintiffs provide expert evidence on the composition and mechanics of light and that the purple light is caused by the obstruction/absorption of other wavelengths by the painted surface of defendants’ house. Shapley decl. ¶7. “Purple” is how the human eye perceives the remaining, non-obstructed wavelengths reflecting off the wall and into the Parodi house. Id. ¶8.

Defendants argue that only purple light enters the Parodi house because other wavelengths are absorbed by the painted wall. They argue the wall does not actually generate light or color, and plaintiffs’ claims are based on obstruction and must fail.

Shapley’s evidence regarding the physics of light is accurate. The Wollmans fail to establish that “obstruction” of light has the technical meaning they seek to ascribe it. As a matter of science, the Wollmans are correct that the entry of purple light into the Parodis’ home is the result of an obstruction of certain visible wavelengths. As a matter of law and day-to-day experience, the Parodis are not experiencing an obstruction. Under the relevant caselaw, such as Sher v. Leiderman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 867, 870, obstruction is synonymous with “blockage,” i.e. darkness or shadow in an location where there was once natural light. The Wollmans are not experiencing darkness or shadowing of an area where sunlight once entered; they are experiencing the entry of purple light where previously that color light did not enter. In other words, they are experiencing an allegedly harmful presence of light rather than an absence of light; the issue is intrusion, not obstruction. The mechanism by which the purple wavelengths enter is immaterial. As the court ruled on demurrer on January 27, 2023, as a matter of law the Parodis’ claim is based on intrusion, not obstruction.

Defendants ask the court to summarily adjudicate three separate questions of duty. Since this portion of the motion is based on the same argument the court addresses above – that plaintiffs have no right to unobstructed light – the argument fails. Property owners have a general duty to refrain from activities that cause an unreasonable interference with their neighbors’ use or enjoyment of their property. Sher, supra, 181 Cal. App 3d at 875. There is evidence the Wollmans’ painting of the wall constitutes an intrusion into the Parodis’ use and enjoyment of their home. E.g. Parodi Decl. ¶¶2-4, Younger Decl. ¶3, Wollman decl. ¶4. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the intrusion was reasonable. DENIED.