Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2021-00036240-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 10, 2024

01/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2021-00036240-CU-PO-CTL ESHO VS SPIRE SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Motion, 03/06/2023

The amended Motion (ROA # 127) of Defendant CITY WIDE PROTECTION SERVICES, INC.

('Defendant' or 'City Wide') for summary judgment of the first amended complaint ('FAC' - ROA # 118) of Plaintiff STIVEN ESHO ('Plaintiff') or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of causes of action 1, 2 and 5, is DENIED.

This ruling is based on the analysis set forth below.

Plaintiff's evidentiary objections (ROA # 134) are OVERRULED.

Defendant's evidentiary objections (ROA # 140) are OVERRULED.

Initially, the Court finds that Defendant's Separate Statement is sufficient and is not defective.

1st COA: Negligence 2nd COA: Premises Liability Merely because a business chooses to have a security program that includes provision of a roving security guard does not mean that the proprietor has assumed a duty to protect invitees from all third-party violence. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 224, 249.

However, by contracting with the business to provide security services, the security guard company creates a special relationship between itself and the business's customers. Trujillo v. G.A. Enterprises, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1108.

This relationship, in and of itself, is sufficient to impose on the guard the obligation to act affirmatively to protect customers while they are on the business premises. Id. A security guard hired by the business should be liable to an injured customer where the guard fails to act as would a reasonable security guard under similar circumstances and that failure causes injury. Id. In this case, disputed material facts exist regarding whether the on-duty security guards failed to act as would reasonable security guards under similar circumstances, and whether this failure contributed to Plaintiff's injuries.

Specifically, it is disputed whether they two security guards should have been congregating in the lobby Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2991868 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ESHO VS SPIRE SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2021-00036240-CU-PO-CTL of the Pinnacle building, whether at least one of them should have been actively patrolling in the Spire lobby where the incident occurred, and whether this security patrol could have prevented, diffused or stopped the confrontation, or at least acted in a way that minimized plaintiff's injuries.

Given the contractual obligation to patrol the lobby, it is disputed whether simply having a security guard present in the Spire lobby would have prevented the verbal confrontation from escalating into physical violence.

5th COA: Negligent Undertaking A person who undertakes to render services for another may be liable to third persons for physical harm resulting from a failure to act with reasonable care. Paz v. State of California (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 550, 553.

Liability may exist if: (a) the failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of harm, (b) the undertaking was to perform a duty the other person owed to the third persons, or (c) the harm was suffered because the other person or the third persons relied on the undertaking. Id. As discussed above, disputed material facts exist regarding whether the on-duty security guards failed to act as would reasonable security guards under similar circumstances, and whether this failure contributed to Plaintiff's injuries.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2991868