Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00001123-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023  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) 37-2022-00001123-CU-PO-CTL TAYLOR VS CAPOOCIA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 04/06/2023

The unopposed Motion (ROA # 83, 96) of Defendant / Cross-Complainant / Cross-Defendant ROBERT CAPOOCIA, Defendant CHERYL CAPOOCIA (sued as DOE 1) and HKT CAL, INC. JENNIFER ARMITAGE, ARMITAGE PROPERTY, INC. and ANDREW ARROYO REAL ESTATE, INC. ('moving parties') for an order for summary judgment against Plaintiff Leona Taylor ('Plaintiff'), is GRANTED.

Where a landlord has relinquished control of property to a tenant, a 'bright line' rule has developed to moderate the landlord's duty of care owed to a third party injured on the property as compared with the tenant who enjoys possession and control. Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 404, 412.

Because a landlord has relinquished possessory interest in the land, his duty of care to third parties injured on the land is attenuated as compared with the tenant who enjoys possession and control. Id. Before liability may be thrust on a landlord for a third party's injury due to a dangerous condition on the land, Plaintiff must show that the landlord had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition in question, plus the right and ability to cure the condition. Id. Limiting a landlord's obligations releases it from needing to engage in potentially intrusive oversight of the property, thus permitting the tenant to enjoy the tenancy unmolested. Id. Consistent with this rule, a landlord owes a duty of care to the tenant's invitees to prevent injury from the tenant's vicious dog when the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's vicious nature in time to protect against the dangerous condition on the property. Id. at 413.

Conversely, a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from a tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm. Id. A landlord is under no duty to inspect the premises for the purpose of discovering the existence of a tenant's dangerous animal. Id. Only when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal, coupled with the right to have it removed from the premises, does a duty of care arise. Id. In Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1360 the rule discussed above was also found to apply to a property manager in the context of a residential lease. Id. at 1378, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2988434  2 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TAYLOR VS CAPOOCIA [IMAGED]  37-2022-00001123-CU-PO-CTL 1379.

The undisputed facts demonstrate that the Defendants making this Motion were the owners and property managers. They did not have actual knowledge of the vicious nature and propensity of the dogs owned and maintained on the property by Dixie Franklin. In addition, the lease agreement prohibited animals and pets from being kept on or about the property without the landlord's written consent. Summary judgment is granted on this basis.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2988434  2