Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00022177-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00022177-CU-PO-CTL PANNELL VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant HLT Conrad Domestic LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

The moving party on a motion for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If satisfied, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make his or her own prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Id.) 'There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.' (Id.) When a party opposing summary judgment fails to include a separate statement or the separate statement fails to unequivocally state which facts are disputed, the facts in the moving party's separate statement are deemed undisputed. (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1186 n.4 (citing Carolyn v. Orange Park Community Assn. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1094).) The single cause of action asserted by Plaintiff is Premises Liability. '[C]laims for premises liability and negligence rest on the same elements-namely, (1) a legal duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause resulting in injury.' (Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 508, 517.) Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because, pursuant to Civil Code § 846, it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. The Court agrees.

'An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.' (Civ. Code, § 846(a).) The three exceptions in the statute are: '(1) Willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity', (2) Injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose' and (3) Any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner.' (Id. § 846(d).) There are two prerequisite elements to Section 846 immunity: '(1) the defendant must be the owner of an estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory; and (2) the plaintiff's injury must result from the entry or use of the premises for any recreational purpose.' (Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1100 (alterations and quotation marks omitted).) It is undisputed that Plaintiff was training for a marathon, which is a recreational activity under the statute. (Rucker v. Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3116940  9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PANNELL VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT [IMAGED]  37-2022-00022177-CU-PO-CTL WINCAL, LLC (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 883, 889, review denied (May 11, 2022).) Although Defendant does not own the land, it holds an interest in the property by virtue of its status as manager/operator of the Hotel and its right to possession of the premises. (See Hubbard v. Brown (1990) 50 Cal.3d 189, 197 (holding that Section 846 immunity extends to individuals on public land in which defendant had a federal grazing permit).) Furthermore, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the statute apply to the facts of this case. Because Defendant has established there are no triable issues of fact as to Defendant's duty of care to Plaintiff, summary judgment is granted.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3116940  9