Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 20STCV08428 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Valencia Villa Apartments, L.P., and GK Management Co., Inc.

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Myung Soon Yom (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Valencia Villa Apartments, L.P., and GK Management Co., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for (1) Negligence and (2) Premises Liability.

On July 22, 2022, Defendants filed this motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.

On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff slipped and fell on liquid in the front doorway of her apartment unit. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 2.) Water was leaking from the bathroom immediately next to the front entrance from the ceiling and light fixture in the kitchen, flooding the entrance way. As Plaintiff went out to notify the manager, Plaintiff slipped in the hallway and fell. (UMF No. 6.) A water supply line to the toilet in Unit 212 burst and caused water to leak through the ceiling of Unit 112. (UMF No. 8.) Plaintiff has leased, resided in, and possessed Unit 112 of Defendants’ Valencia Villa Apartments complex since 11/19/14. (UMF No. 1.)

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence. (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.” (Ibid.)¿ The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Therefore, to prevail on a claim for premises liability, Plaintiff must prove: (1) defendant owned or controlled the subject property; (2) defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; (3) plaintiff was harmed; and (4) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (See CACI 1000; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.)

A defendant is negligent in the use or maintenance of the property if “(1) [a] condition on the property created an unreasonable risk of harm; (2) [the defendant] knew or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about it; and (3) [the defendant] failed to repair the condition, protect against harm from the condition, or give adequate warning of the condition.” (CACI No. 1003.)

After a tenant has taken possession, a landlord must take reasonable precautions to prevent injury due to any unsafe condition in an area of the premises under the tenant’s control if the landlord has actual knowledge of the condition and the right and ability to correct it. (CACI No. 1006.)

In determining whether a defendant should have known of the condition that created the risk of harm, a plaintiff must show that, under the all the circumstances, the condition was of such a nature and existed long enough that the defendant had sufficient time to discover it and, using reasonable care: (1) repair the condition; or (2) protect against harm from the condition; or (3) adequately warn of the condition. A defendant must make reasonable inspections of the property to discover unsafe conditions. If an inspection was not made within a reasonable time before the accident, this may show that the condition existed long enough so that the defendant using reasonable care would have discovered it. (CACI No. 1011.)

A property owner is not the insurer of the safety of its guests. 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, 1139-40.)

Plaintiff submits thirty-three objections to Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Declaration of Rodolfo Salazar, and the Declaration of Michael Eisenbaum. Plaintiff objects to portions of the Separate Statement for failing to observe California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Separate Statement improperly sets forth non-material facts and fails to separately identify each cause of action, claim, issue of duty or affirmative defense and each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute. Those objections are OVERRULED. Rule 3.1350 states that the “separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subd. (d)(2), emphasis added.) Defendants’ Separate Statement, while containing some immaterial facts such as the dates on which Defendants propounded discovery to Plaintiff and when Plaintiff responded, are related to Plaintiff’s discovery responses, which are material and relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. And contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, Defendants’ Separate Statement does identify the issues which it claims are not in dispute.

Plaintiff objects to the Salazar Declaration for lack of personal knowledge. The objection is OVERRULED. Salazar is the Supervisor of Risk Management and custodian of records for GK Management Co., Inc. As such, he has personal knowledge of the service requests submitted by the tenants of the Valencia Villa Apartments complex and whether any service work was done pursuant to those requests.

Plaintiff objects to the Eisenbaum Declaration for lack of personal knowledge. The objection is OVERRULED. Eisenbaum is counsel for Defendants. His declaration is submitted to introduce admissible exhibits, such as deposition testimony from Plaintiff and her husband. Such testimony is material and relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

Defendants object to Exhibits 2 and 3 attached to the Declaration of Kenneth Yoo for lack of foundation. The objection is OVERRULED. (See Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 948-949 (noting that inadmissible evidence may be considered in ruling on a summary judgment motion if the defects can be cured at trial.)

As framed by the Complaint, Plaintiff lived at 25857 Singing Hill Dr., Apt. 112, Valencia, CA 91355 (“Subject Premises”). On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff slipped on a quantity of liquid on the floor and fell to the ground. Defendants negligently owned, operated, controlled, managed, entrusted, and/or maintained the Subject Premises by allowing this liquid to remain pooled on the floor. Defendants’ negligence created a dangerous condition which caused bodily injury to the Plaintiff. Defendants also failed to warn Plaintiff of this dangerous condition, or to take sufficient precautions to guard against it.

Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate because Plaintiff cannot establish Defendants breached a duty of care. Specifically, Defendants contend they did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.[2] As the elements of a claim for negligence and premises liability are the same, the Court considers together Defendants’ challenge to both causes of action.

Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony, and the Declaration of Rodolfo Salazar to establish that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the pool of water in Plaintiff’s apartment unit or the water supply line leak in Unit 212.

1. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory Responses. Defendants point to Plaintiff’s responses

to Special Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12. Plaintiff states that water was leaking from the ceiling fixture in the bathroom and the light fixture in the kitchen, flooding the entrance way, the bathroom, and the hallway. As she went to report the leakage to management, Plaintiff slipped and fell and was injured. (Special Interrogatory Responses, Eisenbaum Decl., Exh. 2, p. 4.) This evidence shows that Plaintiff suffered the injury soon after the flooding occurred and before she could notify management.

2. Plaintiff’s Testimony. At deposition, Plaintiff provided testimony consistent with her

interrogatory responses. When asked what she was doing right before she noticed the water leak, Plaintiff responded, “I was just at home and I heard a water dripping sound in the bathroom, so water was leaking from the ceiling in the back and water was smearing down to the outside. So my husband went to the office, and I noticed that there was water leak in the kitchen near the lighting so I had to leave the place too so when I was leaving, then that’s when I slipped and fell.” (Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony, Eisenbaum Decl., Ex. 3, 19:5-11.) Plaintiff further testified that her husband went to notify management “[r]ight after seeing [the water]. But by that time it was a lot of water. It just poured.” (Id. at 21:2-5.) Nor had Plaintiff noticed anything like the water leak until water started dripping in the bathroom. (Id. at 22:2-11.)

3. Declaration of Rodolfo Salazar. Salazar states that GK Management Co., Inc. has

never possessed “any tenant complaints or repair requests before March 9, 2018 pertaining to a leak from a water supply line to the toilet in Unit 212.” (Salazar Decl., ¶ 4.) Salazar further states that “GK Management Co., Inc.’s employee, Joe Stockey, is a maintenance worker at the Valencia Villa Apartments. He has been employed there since 07/19/2004. In that capacity, he responds to tenant complaints and requests for maintenance/repairs in the apartment units. Mr. Stockey never performed any repairs before March 9, 2018 pertaining to a leak from a water supply line to the toilet in Unit 212.” (Salazar Decl., ¶ 5.) This evidence establishes that Defendants had not been notified of any water supply line issues to the toilet in Unit 212.

Based upon this evidence, Defendants argue their lack of actual or constructive knowledge concerning the leak negates an essential element of the causes of action. Based upon the foregoing, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiff has made such a showing. Plaintiff offers a service request that was submitted by Plaintiff’s husband on February 26, 2018 concerning a water leak above the bathroom tub. (Plaintiff’s Compendium of Exhibits, Ex, 2; Yoo Decl.) (Emphasis added.)[3] The information demonstrates that a leak in the bathroom was reported to Defendants on February 26, 2018; the injury happened on March 9, 2018; and the repair was completed on March 16, 2018 or (March 20, 2018). Defendants were notified about the leak two weeks prior to the incident but failed to respond before water poured through the ceiling heater and the floor was flooded, which led to Plaintiff’s fall. Given that Plaintiff notified Defendants of a water leak above the bathroom on March 9, 2018, had Defendants responded timely, the investigation of the ceiling leak would have led to the leak from Unit 212; at least, a reasonable trier of fact could so find and Defendants have not presented any evidence demonstrating conclusively to the contrary. Indeed, a reasonable trier of fact could find the February 26 service request provided Defendants with sufficient notice and time to either repair, protect against, or warn of the condition.

Defendants do not contend with this evidence.[4] Without dealing with and rebutting this evidence, Defendants cannot carry their burden on summary judgment to negate conclusively their actual knowledge of the condition. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants for bringing their motion for summary judgment. The request is DENIED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that 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 matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

[1] Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s prior order granting Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the trial or to advance the hearing for this motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff objected to the ex parte application because she is over 81 years of age and the trial “continuance increase[s] the chances that Plaintiff may not see her day in court.” Code of Civil Procedure section 36 provides a method by which a litigant who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for preference. “A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; [and] (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § subd. (a)(1)(2).) However, Plaintiff did not avail herself of this procedure at any point in this litigation, and still not after Defendants submitted their ex parte application on July 27, 2022.

[2] Defendants do not dispute the existence of a dangerous condition.

[3] Plaintiff makes an additional argument that Defendants had actual or constructive notice that the water line toilet couplings in the building were systemically defective which required them to take reasonable precautions to prevent water leaks from the toilets in the building, which in turn, would have prevented the injury in this case. Given the Court’s ruling herein, the Court need not and does not reach the question whether the evidence presented provided actual or constructive notice of a systemic defect in the building related to toilet water supply lines.

[4] Defendants objected to this exhibit, which the Court overruled.