Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

martha burrola,

Plaintiff,

the vons companies, inc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22BBCV01254

Hearing Date: July 26, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for summary judgment; and motions to compel responses

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff Martha Burrola (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on December 23, 2020, as she was existing a Pavilions grocery store, she walked across a clear liquid substance at the entrance and exit door and on the adjacent parking area and painted crosswalk. She alleges that this caused the area to be slippery when walked over. She alleges that there was no warning that the area was wet or slippery. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on the painted crosswalk as she was walking towards her car. Plaintiff alleges that the store premises was owned, operated, leased, rented, maintained, and/or managed by Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. (“Vons”) and that the premises/common areas were owned, operated, leased, rented, maintained, and/or managed by Defendant The Decurion Corporation (“Decurion Corp.”).

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed June 28, 2023, alleges a cause of action for negligence, premises liability.

On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff named Rancho Marketplace Gateway, LLC as Doe 6 (“Rancho”); Robertson Properties Group as Doe 7 (“Robertson”); and Decurion Management Company as Doe 8 (“Decurion Management”).

B. Cross-Complaints

On April 11, 2023, Vons filed a cross-complaint against Rancho for: (1) breach of contract; (2) implied indemnity; (3) express indemnity; (4) contribution and apportionment; and (5) declaratory relief.

On July 13, 2023, Rancho filed a cross-complaint against Moes 1-25 for: (1) equitable/implied indemnity; (2) contribution and apportionment; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of contract; and (5) express indemnity. On May 10, 2024, Rancho named The Vons Companies Inc. as Moe 1.

On July 18, 2023, Decurion Corp. filed a cross-complaint against Foes 1-25 for: (1) equitable/implied indemnity; (2) contribution and apportionment; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of contract; and (5) express indemnity.

C. Motions on Calendar

On May 10, 2024, Decurion Corp. filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff on the sole cause of action for premises liability in the FAC. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

On June 25 and 28, 2024, Rancho filed 3 motions to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”); (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”); and Document Demands (“DD”). The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION RE MSJ

Decurion Corp. moves for summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff on the sole cause of action for premises liability in the complaint.

The elements of a premises liability claim and negligence claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.) Because a landowner is not the insurer of a visitor’s safety, the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition is key to establishing liability. (Hall v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1139.) Ordinarily, where there is a dangerous condition on the business proprietor’s property, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition for a sufficient time to remedy or warn of the danger. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205-07.)

In support of the motion, Decurion provides the following undisputed material facts. Plaintiff filed the complaint on December 19, 2022, alleging that she slipped and fell on December 23, 2020 (“Incident”) on a crosswalk in the parking lot in front of Vons Pavilions located at 1110 West Alameda Avenue, Burbank, California (the “Subject Property”). (Fact 1.) On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the FAC with a single claim for premises liability, which alleged that she was injured after she slipped and fell in a “clear liquid substance existed at the entrance and exit door to the Pavilions grocery store and on the adjacent parking area and painted crosswalk causing the area to be slippery when walked over.” (Fact 2.) On July 18, 2023, Decurion filed its answer to the FAC, asserting various affirmative defenses including the 9^th and 27^th affirmative defenses of “No Causation” and “Lack of Duty – Foreseeability.” (Fact 3.)

The Subject Property at the time of the Incident was being leased to lessee Vons by lessor Rancho pursuant to the original lease dated July 17, 1989, as amended by the Lease Modification Agreement dated November 15, 2005. (Fact 4.) Rancho owned the Subject Property following a grant deed conveyance from California Drive-In Theatres Inc. dated July 7, 2004. (Fact 9.) Rancho is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with “active” status with the California Secretary of State. (Fact 10.) Decurion is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with “active” status with the California Secretary of State and it did not own or hold title to the Subject Property at the time of the Incident on December 23, 2020. (Fact 10.) Decurion is a holding company for various subsidiaries that manage and control various commercial real estate assets, including Rancho, the owner and lessor of the Subject Property. (Fact 11.) Decurion was not a party to any leasing agreement governing the Subject Property at the time of the Incident on December 23, 2020. (Fact 12.) Decurion was not in any way involved in the daily management, control and maintenance of the parking lot at the Subject Property at the time of the Incident on December 23, 2020. (Fact 13.)

Plaintiff produced photographs which she claims depict the parking lot area at the Subject Property where she slipped and fell, as well as the crosswalk painted stripes which allegedly became slippery when wet. (Fact 5-6.) Decurion served SROG, set one, Nos. 11-13 on Plaintiff requesting the identification of all evidence supporting her contention that Decurion owned, managed, and controlled the parking lot area where the incident occurred, to which Plaintiff responded on September 25, 2023, stating that she could not identify any witness or document to support her contention. (Fact 7-8.)

Based on the undisputed material facts and evidence provided by Decurion, Decurion has shown that it did not own, lease, occupy, or control the Subject Premises but that Rancho was the owner of the Subject Premises who leased the property to Vons. Decurion has shown that Plaintiff did not produce discovery responses showing that that Decurion owned, managed, or controlled the parking lot where the Incident occurred. Decurion argues that since it did not own, possess, or control the Subject Premises and was merely a holding corporation of Rancho, it owed no duty to Plaintiff. (See Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 CalApp.4^th 523, 538-539 [discussing the alter ego doctrine and recognizing that the parent company is not necessarily exposed to liability for its subsidiary’s obligations].) The Court finds that Decurion has upheld its initial burden in summary judgment.

The burden shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact. No opposition has been filed and, thus, Plaintiff has not raised any arguments or triable issues of material fact regarding whether Decurion owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the Subject Premises or whether the alter ego doctrine should apply.

As such, Decurion’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

DISCUSSION RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Rancho moves to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD.

On February 3, 2024, Rancho served on Plaintiff the FROG requests. On April 11, 2024, Rancho served on Plaintiff the SROG and RPD requests. Rancho states that Plaintiff did not serve objections or request an extension. Rancho’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, but did not receive a response from Plaintiff’s counsel. As of the filing of the motions, Rancho states that it has not received responses from Plaintiff.

Rancho’s unopposed motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Rancho’s discovery requests, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Rancho requests sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney in the amount of $1,920 for each motion (= [1 hour to prepare the motion + 2 hours to attend the hearing + 1 hour to review the opposition + 1 hour to prepare the reply, at $450/hour] + $60 in filing fees + $20 for parking). The requests are granted in the reasonable amount of $1,000 in attorney’s fees and $180 in filing fees, for a total of $1,180. The motions are relatively simple motions to compel initial responses and are unopposed. The Court also notes that Burbank Courthouse does not charge for parking.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant The Decurion Corporation’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to the sole cause of action in Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant The Decurion Corporation is dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant Rancho Marketplace Gateway, LLC’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Rancho’s discovery requests, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,080 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Each moving party shall provide notice of their respective order.

DATED: July 26, 2024 ___________________________

John Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court