Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case BC692559 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: BC692559, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC692559 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: May 5, 2023 TRIAL DATE: July 7, 2023

CASE: Jaleel Melendez v. Pinetree Terrace Apartments, et al.

CASE NO.: BC692559

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Pinetree Investments, LLC and Mabry Management Company, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: No Opposition

I. BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Jaleel Melendez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Pinetree Terrace Apartments and Mabry Management Co., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a slip and fall. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on April 17, 2018. The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) General Negligence and (2) Premises Liability. According to the FAC, on June 12, 2017, Plaintiff slipped and fell on a liquid substance on the common area staircase.

On January 12, 2023, Defendants filed this motion for summary judgment. The motion is unopposed.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff was at the Pinetree Terrace Apartments, located at 7940 Reseda Blvd., Reseda, CA 91335 when he slipped and fell, as a result of water on the stairwell, while walking at the premises. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1.) Plaintiff is alleging he sustained injuries to his head, neck, back, spine, tailbone, and pain and suffering as a result of the incident. (UMF No. 2.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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.)

IV. DISCUSSION

On October 13, 2021, Defendants served requests for admission (“RFA” or “RFAs”) on Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff failed to respond. On March 17, 2022, Defendants moved to deem the RFAs admitted against Plaintiff. The Court denied the motion because Defendants did not serve Plaintiff with the motion by personal service. On August 24, 2022, Defendants filed another motion to deem the RFAs admitted against Plaintiff. On December 20, 2022, more than a year after Defendants served Plaintiff with the RFAs, the Court granted Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted that: (1) he was not injured as a result of the alleged accident alleged in the complaint (RFA No. 7); (2) he has not sought any medical treatment for injuries caused by the alleged incident enumerated in the complaint (RFA No. 8); (3) he never communicated with anyone that he was injured as result of the incident (RFA No. 17); Defendants did not fail to warn Plaintiff of any dangerous, defective, and unsafe condition as alleged in the Complaint (RFA No. 21); Defendants’ premises as alleged in the complaint is not in an unsafe condition nor is not dangerous (RFA Nos. 5, 6); and that there was no dangerous, defective, unsafe, or hazardous condition on Defendants’ premises (RFA Nos. 28-31).

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Requests for admissions “differs fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The purpose of the admissions procedure . . . is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” [Citations.] Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contrary evidence. [Citation.]” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.)

Deemed admissions constitute incontrovertible evidence establishing the facts they admit. (Scalf, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1522.) Defendant have met their burden and Plaintiff has filed 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).) Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Defendants is appropriate.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: May 5, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

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.