Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC01540, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC01540    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY:    Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Alondra Reyes

Motion for Summary Judgment

(CCP § 437(c))

TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons below, Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

SERVICE: 

[¿] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 [OK]

[¿] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 [OK]

[¿] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     [OK]

OPPOSITION:          Filed on April 12, 2023                                   

REPLY:                     Filed on April 19, 2023

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff Alondra Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions LLC (“Defendant”), a grocery store, alleging premises liability after Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell at Defendant’s store.  Defendant filed an answer on June 27, 2022.

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) on January 24, 2023. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on April 12, 2023 and Defendant filed its reply papers on April 19, 2023. 

II.              Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP Section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) 

“The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. 

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

III.            Discussion

In the instant case, Plaintiff sues for a single cause of action, for premises liability. (Complaint, p. 4.) “The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “Premises liability is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158, quotation marks omitted.)

California law requires landowners to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Ctr. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207, disapproved of in part on other grounds in Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 522, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 327, 235 P.3d 988.) Consequently, landowners are liable for injuries caused by a lack of due care in the maintenance of their property. (Davert v. Larson (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 407, 410, 209 Cal.Rptr. 445.)

While a landowner is not the insurer of a visitor's safety, a landowner must exercise ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the premises to ascertain whether any dangerous conditions exist on the property. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th at p. 1205.) If a dangerous condition does exist, the landowner must, “ ‘use the care required of a reasonably prudent [person] acting under the same circumstances.’ ” (Ibid, citing Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 448, 2 Cal.Rptr. 146, 348 P.2d 696.) Failure to do so constitutes a breach of duty of care. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619, 264 Cal.Rptr. 756.)

In California, a store owner owes patrons a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe. (Ortega supra, at 1205 citing Rest. 2d Torts § 332.) “A store owner exercises ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers, and the care required is commensurate with the risks involved.” (See Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443). The owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition is a key to establishing its liability. (Ortega, supra, at 1206).

“As a general proposition, if there is undisputed evidence that an active inspection of the relevant area occurred less than 30 minutes before the accident, summary judgment in favor of the store owner is appropriate; if not, the question should be resolved by a jury (Mirtaheri v. Sprouts Farmers Mkt., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 252179)

Here, the parties’ primary contention surrounds notice, and whether Defendant knew or should have known that the liquid that caused Plaintiff’s fall was on the floor.  

Plaintiff argues that the sole piece of evidence relied on by Defendant is the declaration of Manny Marin (hereinafter, “Marin Dec.”), the Director of Risk Management and Human Resources for Defendant. The Marin Declaration details that designated employees of Defendant’s store are required to inspect the sales floor to determine if there are any conditions on the floor that might pose a danger to customers or other employees. (Marin Dec., ¶ 5.) Marin further details that these inspections occur every 30 minutes, and that after each inspection the employee is required to initial the “Sales Floor Inspection/Sweep Sheet”, confirming the inspection, along with an acting manager who must do the same. (Ibid.) Plaintiff challenges the Marin Declaration, arguing that Marin has no personal knowledge of whether the floor was actually swept every half-hour. Even if Marin does not, Plaintiff offers no substantial evidence to counter the “Sales Floor Inspection/Sweep Sheet” (Motion, Exh. 4) which corroborates the Marin Declaration, aside from objecting to UMF 16. (See Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, p.4, lines 22-24.) 

Defendant argues that the “Sales Floor Inspection/Sweep Sheet” operates as evidence that the adequate inspection occurred. Using Mirtaheri as a guide, the Court agrees. Moreover, the Marin Declaration operates to lay the foundation for the “Sales Floor Inspection/Sweep Sheet” and not as Defendant’s sole piece of evidence.

Neither party is arguing whether Defendant had a duty. The contention is whether a breach occurred when Plaintiff suffered harm by falling. Plaintiff must show that a breach occurred, in this instance, show that Defendant either had actual or constructive notice. The “Sales Floor Inspection/Sweep Sheet” shows that, on August 18, 2021, a sweep was conducted at 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. (Motion, Exh. 4). Plaintiff suffered her injury between those times. Here, Defendant has established that the element of breach is non-existent, carrying its burden of proof by demonstrating that the store owner exercised reasonable care. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to make a showing that breach does exist; however, no such showing has been made.      

IV.           Conclusion & Order

Accordingly, Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.