Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01232157, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or SAI
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff James Abi-Abdallah (“Plaintiff”) moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication against Defendant California State Soccer Association – South (Cal South) (“Defendant”), contending the undisputed evidence shows Defendant acted with conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiff when it started its physical fitness test before the scheduled start time, causing Plaintiff to be injured due to his inability to properly warm up.
“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a)(1).) “The motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.” (Id., § 437c(b)(1).)
A plaintiff moving for summary judgment has met his or her burden of showing there is no defense to a cause of action if they have proved each element of that cause of action. (Id., § 437c(p)(1).) The burden then shifts to the defendant to raise a triable issue of one or more material facts as to the cause of action or a defense thereto by setting forth specific facts showing a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff’s Motion contends Defendant scheduled the test to start at 7:15 p.m. and Defendant started the test early, at 7:00 pm, without any notice or consent, and he was deprived of an opportunity to properly warm up due to Defendant’s conduct, Defendant increased the inherent risk of the activity, and Defendant knew how important it was to warm up because it specifically instructed participants to arrive early so they would have time to warm up and, therefore, acted willfully and with conscious disregard by forcing participants to start the test early. Plaintiff contends he suffered a hamstring injury during the test due to his inability to properly warm up.
A factual dispute exists as to whether the test started early or at the correct time. Plaintiff asserts that the test started at around 7 pm instead of the scheduled 7:15 pm time. In support, he offers his own declaration and the declaration of four other witnesses who participated in the test. However, the contractor who conducted the test for Defendant, Randall Reyes, claims it started at the correct time. (Declaration of Randall Reyes, ¶ 4.) Defendant’s evidence is sufficient to raise a triable issue as to when the test started on the day of Plaintiff’s injury. (See San Francisco Print Media Co. v. The Hearst Corp. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 952, 959-960 [evidence in favor of the opposing party must be liberally construed and all doubts concerning evidence must be resolved in favor of that party].) If the test started at the scheduled time, then Defendant did not breach any duty of care.
Further, “to demonstrate actual or legal causation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s act or omission was a ‘substantial factor’ in bringing about the injury.” (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 778.) “In other words, plaintiff must show some substantial link or nexus between omission and injury.” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff has shown he participated in the physical fitness test and sustained a hamstring injury, but he has not shown there was a substantial link between the two. Though a trier of fact may reasonably infer the injury was caused by the inability to properly warm up, it is possible there was some other cause, such as a preexisting injury or condition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff “must show that the inferences favorable to [him] are more reasonable or probable than those against [him.]” (Leslie G. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 483.) He has not done so here because he has offered no evidence on causation.
Considering all of the above, the Motion is DENIED.
Defendant to give notice.