Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV26481, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV26481 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: 27
Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27
(1) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; (2) MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST
PLAINTIFF OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO CONTINUE TRIAL; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Hearing Date: 12/12/24¿
CASE NO./NAME: 20STCV26481 IDALIA LEMUS vs SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET LLC
Moving Party: Defendant SF Markets, LLC
Responding Party: Plaintiff¿Idalia Lemus
Notice: Sufficient¿
Ruling: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN
PART.
Background
On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff¿Idalia Lemus (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant SF Markets, LLC (erroneously sued as Sprout’s
Farmers Market LLC) (hereafter “Defendant”) for negligence and premises
liability. Plaintiff alleges that on July 19, 2018, while at a Sprout’s market,
she fell on blueberries and ijured herself.
Defendant now moves for summary judgment, or
alternatively, summary adjudication on the following issues: (1) Plaintiff
cannot present evidence that Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition; (2) Plaintiff cannot present evidence that Defendant
failed to exercise reasonable care; and (3) Plaintiff cannot present evidence
that Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
injuries. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.
Legal Standard¿¿
¿¿
The purpose of a motion for summary judgment
or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through
the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite its allegations,
trial is in fact necessary to resolve its dispute.” Aguilar v. Atlantic
Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843. “Code of Civil Procedure section
437c, subdivision (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.¿¿¿
¿¿
A “defendant moving for summary judgment must
show the plaintiff’s causes of action have¿no merit.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849, emphasis added.)
In other words, summary judgment is not to be granted simply because a case is
“weak” or because a “weak” showing was made in opposition. (Hagen v.
Hickenbottom¿(1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 187-188, superseded by statute on
another point as recognized in¿Rice v. Clark¿(2002) 28
Cal.4th 89, 96;¿Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.¿(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 589, 722. [“to avoid summary judgment a
showing need not be strong; it need only be sufficient to raise a triable issue
of fact.”].)¿¿
¿
“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial
burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie 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.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). The elements of negligence are (1) a legal duty owed to
plaintiffs to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage
to plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006)
137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 318.)¿
¿
Defendant has two methods to shift the burden
of proof. In addition to the standard method of presenting evidence that
negates an essential element, the defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery
responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an
essential element of the cause of action sued upon. (Union Bank v. Superior
Court, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 590.)¿“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.” CCP § 437c(p)(2).¿¿
Evidentiary
Objections
The
Court declines to rule on Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence as
they have no effect on the ruling herein. (CCP 437(q)).
A. Negligence/
Premises Liability
The
elements of a premises liability and negligence cause of action
are the same: duty, breach, causation and damages. (Castellon
v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “The owner of
premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such
premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk
of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v.
Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619; Annocki v.
Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)
1. Actual
and Constructive Notice
“The fact alone that a
dangerous condition existed at the time the accident occurred will not warrant
an inference that the defendant was negligent. There must be some evidence,
direct or circumstantial, to support the conclusion that the condition had existed
long enough for the proprietor, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have
discovered and remedied it.” (Girvetz v. Boys’ Market, Inc. (1949) 91
Cal.App.2d 827, 829.)
"It is
ordinarily a question of fact for the jury whether, under all the
circumstances, the defective condition existed long enough so that it would
have been discovered by an owner who exercised reasonable care." (Ortega
v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1209 [Sapp v. W.T. Grant Co.,172
Cal.App.2d 89, 91-92 [liability found when patron stepped on a spool of thread
and there had been no inspection for a period of 20 minutes]; Hale v.
Safeway Stores, Inc., 129 Cal.App.2d 124, 128 [non-suit improper when
customer slipped on banana and no inspection for a period of "12, 15, or
30 or more minutes"]; Louie v. Hagstrom's Food Stores, Inc., 81
Cal.App.2d 601, 607-609 [liability found when patron slipped in pool of syrup
and no inspection for between 15 to 25 minutes]]). Moreover, “a person
operating a fruit and vegetable section in a store should at least, as to that
portion of the premises, in the exercise of ordinary care, maintain a more
vigilant outlook than would be required in the operation of some other type of
business where the danger of things falling on the floor upon which a person
might easily slip and fall is not so obvious.” (Hale, 129 Cal.App.2d at
132.)
Here, Defendant
argues Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant had actual or constructive
notice of the blueberries on the floor.
Factually Devoid
Discovery Reponses
Although Defendant can
meet its initial burden by introducing Plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery
responses, Defendant must demonstrate: (1) Plaintiff’s discovery responses fail
to set forth facts and identify evidence supporting Plaintiff’s allegations;
and (2) the court can reasonably infer from the proffered discovery and
responses that Plaintiff is unable to produce any additional evidence. (Andrews
v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 102-103.) Plaintiff must
have been afforded adequate opportunity for discovery (Union Bank v. Sup.Ct.
(Demetry) (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590) or have declared no further
information following extensive discovery. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc.
(2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1441-1442.) Defendant does not satisfy its burden
of proof by producing discovery responses that do not exclude the possibility
that Plaintiff may possess or may reasonably obtain evidence sufficient to
establish its claim. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th
1433, 1441-1442.)
Defendant
points to Plaintiff’s October 31, 2022 discovery responses in which she admits
she is unaware whether Defendant had notice of the condition prior to her fall,
or how long the blueberries were on the floor. (See Def. Exh. D, RFA #5-
6; Exh. C SROG #9-10.) Furthermore, at Plaintiff’s deposition on March 8, 2023,
she testified that she did not know how long the blueberries had been present
on the floor. (Def. Exh. E, Pl. Depo 97:15-98:3.) The
responses at those times do not exclude the possibility that Plaintiff may
reasonably obtain evidence sufficient to establish her claim. Thus, Defendant
fails to meet its initial burden through the route of Plaintiff’s factually
devoid discovery responses.
Defendant
also sets forth affirmative evidence from William Rowden, the assistant store
manager at the time of the incident, who declares that in 2018, it was a
regular policy and practice for employees to walk through the entire store
while pushing a wide dust mop or broom to remove any dropped items on the floor.
(Rowden Decl. ¶ 4.) He declares that employees were instructed to remove items
from the floor if they found any potential slipping or tripping hazard. (Id.)
The store sweeps typically took between 10 to 30 minutes. Rowden declares that
he reviewed the store sweep report for July 19, 2018, and found that employee
Dwayne Goslin completed a sweep at 11:19 a.m. (Id. ¶ 7.) According to
Plaintiff’s discovery response, the incident took place at 11:30 a.m. (Def.
Exh. C, SROG # 1.) Based on the fact that store sweeps could take between 10 to
30 minutes, it is possible that the blueberries were on the floor for about 30
minutes before the sweep concluded at 11:19 a.m. Therefore, based on this
evidence, the blueberries could have been on the floor, with no inspection, for
as long as 41 minutes before Plaintiff’s fall. As a result, a triable issue of
fact exists whether Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care by failing
to inspect more frequently, especially in the fruit section. Therefore, Defendant fails to meet its initial burden.
2. Causation
Next,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot produce any evidence that Defendant
created or contributed to the dangerous condition. Again, Defendant relies on
discovery responses wherein Plaintiff did not set forth evidence that Defendant
caused the condition, except asserting that it failed to clean the surface.
(See Exh. D, RFA #5, Exh. C, SROG # 8.) Nevertheless, even if Defendant did not
affirmatively place the blueberries on the floor, as stated above, it may be
liable for failing to reasonably inspect the premises. Based on the timing of
the previous inspection and Plaintiff’s fall, the Court has concluded that this
is a question of fact. Therefore, a triable issue of fact remains regarding
whether Defendant’s failure to adequately inspect was a substantial factor in
causing Plaintiff’s injury.
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is DENIED.
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO
CONTINUE TRIAL
Background
Defendant
moves for terminating, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions against Plaintiff
for failing to comply with the Court’s May 1, 2024, May 23, 2024, and June 13,
2024 discovery orders. The orders compel responses to Supplemental
Interrogatory, Set One and Supplemental Requests for Production. The Court also
imposed $435 in monetary sanctions for each of the two orders. (See Min. Order,
5/23/24, 6/13/24.) Alternatively, Defendant seeks evidentiary sanctions and
$2,625 in monetary sanctions. Defendant also seeks a trial continuance.
Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.
Legal Standard
The Civil Discovery Act provides for an
escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with
monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez
v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to
and commensurate with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is
required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied
discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating
sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse,
and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance
with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate
sanction.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377,
390 [citation omitted].)
Discussion
Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff has failed to provide supplemental discovery responses or monetary
sanctions, in violation of the Court’s May 23, 2024 and June 13, 2024 discovery
orders. On May 31, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of the May 23, 2024 ruling,
on Plaintiff. However, no notice of the ruling has been filed for the June 13,
2024 order.
In
opposition, Plaintiff asserts she provided objection-free, verified, further
responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for
Production, on November 20, 2024. The supporting declaration does not explain
why the responses were not served earlier.
However,
the Court finds that Defendant provides little evidence showing that the
failure to comply was sufficiently willful to warrant terminating sanctions. Also,
while Defendant sets forth past discovery misconduct by Plaintiff, it does not
assert that any other discovery is still pending. Therefore, the motion for
terminating sanctions is denied. (While Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff
has not paid the monetary sanctions imposed in the May 1, 2024 order denying
Defendant’s first motion for terminating sanctions, failure to pay monetary
sanctions is not a basis for terminating sanctions. (See Newland v. Superior
Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [holding, “a terminating sanction
issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is
never justified.”].))
Regarding the request
for evidentiary sanctions, a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions must be
accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(7).)
“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the
discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each
discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate
statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any
other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.
Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c).)¿¿Because
Defendant failed to comply with the separate statement requirement, the request
for evidentiary sanctions is denied.
Because Plaintiff has
not explained why the May 23, 2024, and June 13, 2024, orders were not timely
followed, the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted for the
discovery abuse. Defendant seeks $2,625 in sanctions based on the time expended
in bringing its motion, plus a $60 filing fee. (Crossin Decl. ¶ 10.) The Court
finds this amount reasonable and hereby orders sanctions of $2,625 against
Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally.
Alternatively,
Defendant seeks a trial continuance from January 14, 2025. to at least 120 days
(or roughly four months), to obtain Plaintiff’s pending discovery responses. Given
that all discovery responses have been served, there is insufficient good cause
to continue trial.
Conclusion
The motion for terminating sanctions is denied.
The Court awards $2,625 in monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally. Said
monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.
The motion to continue trial is denied.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
If a party
intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to
the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT”
followed by the case number. The body of
the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact
information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless all parties submit by email to this
tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or
in person for oral argument. You should
assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor
appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the
tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative
ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without
leave.