Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV02070, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV02070    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     January 17, 2024                   TRIAL DATE:  November 8, 2023

CASE:                         Latasha Bracks v. The City of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV02070 

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Latasha Bracks

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

I.          PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            On January 23, 2019, Plaintiff, Latasha Bracks, initiated this action against Defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) for injuries arising from a slip and fall while walking through the main hallway on Defendant’s premises.  Plaintiff alleges the floor of the hallway was in a dangerous condition, and Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

            On August 30, 2022, LAUSD filed this motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.  Oral argument was heard on September 25, 2023.  Thereafter, the Court continued the hearing to October 16, 2023 to consider the arguments made.  On October 16, 2023, the Court granted LAUSD’s summary judgment motion.

            On November 9, 2023, judgment was entered in favor of LAUSD.  Plaintiff was served with Notice of the Entry of Judgment on November 15, 2023.  Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial on November 27, 2023.

            On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for a new trial.  LAUSD filed an opposition.  Plaintiff replied.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD FOR NEW TRIAL

A motion for new trial asks the trial court to reexamine one or more issues of fact or law after a trial and decision by judge or jury.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 656, 657.)¿ A new trial motion is also available to challenge judgments disposing of an action without trial where an issue of fact or law has been decided, such as in the case of summary judgment.¿ (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 858.)  “The right to a new trial is purely statutory, and a motion for a new trial can be granted only on one of the grounds enumerated in the statute.”  (Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 162, 166.)  “As the motion for a new trial finds both its source and its limitations in the statutes, the procedural steps prescribed by law for making and determining such a motion are mandatory and must be strictly followed.”  (Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 118 [cleaned up]; Pacific Trends Lamp & Lighting Products, Inc. v. J. White Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1135.) 

As set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 657, the grounds upon which a new trial may be ordered include: 

1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. 

2. Misconduct of the jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to a finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors. 

3. Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. 

4. Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial. 

5. Excessive or inadequate damages. 

6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law. 

7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) 

III.       DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for a new trial, arguing that granting LAUSD’s motion for summary judgment was error in law because the evidence was insufficient to support the ruling.[1]  The Court concludes a new trial is not warranted.

In granting LAUSD’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found that LAUSD did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition.[2]  Specifically, the Court found that LAUSD presented the declarations of two employees to show the condition was not obvious.  Fifteen minutes prior to Plaintiff’s fall, an employee walked over the very same area and did not see a spill.  Plaintiff also testified that she did not see the spill.  Plaintiff failed to rebut LAUSD’s evidence.

Plaintiff argues that the foregoing evidence was insufficient to grant the summary judgment motion because the Court did not consider whether LAUSD used due care in discovering the condition.  This argument fails.[3]  As stated in the Court’s October 16, 2023 ruling: 

“[T]he adequacy of LAUSD’s inspection is a “secondary” consideration in determining whether the entity had constructive notice of a dangerous condition.  (State of California v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 396, 400; see also Strongman v. County of Kern (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 308, 313.)  As the court explained in State of California: “In the instant case, it can be validly argued that there was a triable issue on the question of inspection, but in determining whether there is constructive notice, the method of inspection has been held to be secondary. The primary and indispensable element of constructive notice is a showing that the obvious condition existed a sufficient period of time before the accident.” (263 Cal.App.2d at p. 400, original italics.).” (Emphasis added.)

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the dangerous condition was not obvious.  Neither party noticed the condition.  No evidence was presented to establish the threshold elements of constructive notice.  (See Heskel v. City of San Diego (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 313, 317 [“Whether the dangerous condition was obvious and whether it existed for a sufficient period of time are threshold elements to establish a claim of constructive notice.”].)  Whether LAUSD used due care was secondary.  Plaintiff does not establish the evidence was insufficient.

Plaintiff goes on to argue that the Court did not consider her expert’s evidence on the dangerousness of the flooring itself.  This argument is unavailing.  First, the gravamen of Plaintiff’s case was that she slipped on the wet substance on the floor, not because of the slippery flooring underneath the puddle.  There was no evidence provided to show that Plaintiff was unstable walking on any other portion of the floor.  Second, as discussed above, the threshold elements of constructive notice were not established.  Plaintiff does not carry her burden to show a new trial is warranted.

VI.       CONCLUSION

            The motion for a new trial is DENIED. 

LAUSD to give notice.   

Dated:   January 17, 2024