Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV30169, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30169    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 

Hearing Date: 8/21/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV30169 STEVEN PARRIS vs MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS, LLC

Moving Party: Defendants

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿ 

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IS GRANTED IN PART

Background

This premises liability/negligence case arises from a slip and fall incident that occurred on December 25, 2019, at Defendant Mastro’s Restaurants located on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California. Plaintiff alleges that the incident happened on a very rainy night as he was entering the men's restroom and slipped due to water inside the restroom doorway. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendants Mastro’s Restaurants, Matthew Espy, and Moses Barrios. Defendants now move for summary adjudication as to these claims for punitive damages. Plaintiff did not file an opposition but instead argued that the motion improperly combined three separate motions into one, and on this basis, requests that the court deny the motion.

Legal Standard

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, 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).)¿If the moving party fails to carry its burden, the inquiry is over, and the motion must be denied. (See Id.; see also Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)¿Even if the moving party does carry its burden, the non-moving party will still defeat the motion by presenting evidence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849-50.)¿¿ 

¿¿ 

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 court must “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party,” including “all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.”¿(Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037; Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 844-45.) “On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence.¿While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues.¿[Citation.]¿Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law.¿ If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.”¿(Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839.)¿Further, “the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true.¿[Citation.]¿Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court’s evaluation of credibility. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 840; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)

Plaintiff’s Procedural Argument

Plaintiff essentially argues that the motion for summary adjudication improperly addresses claims of punitive damage for three defendants in a single filing. Instead, Defendants should each file their own separate motion. In support of this position, Plaintiff cites California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, subdivision (b)(1), which states in pertinent part, “The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed.” The subsection further notes that “The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may, in the court's discretion, constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.”

The court exercises its discretion to hear the motion for the following reasons:

First, the court is not fully convinced that “the moving party” should be interpreted strictly as singular. California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c discusses the procedure for summary judgment/adjudication in abstract terms without specific reference to the number of parties involved. Therefore, the term acts as a general designator for any party or parties moving the court, without a strict interpretation regarding its plurality or singularity.

Second, Plaintiff has not provided any case law or statute that expressly prohibits defendants from seeking adjudication on issues pertaining to different defendants in a single motion. The only evidence presented is the use of the terms "the party" or "a party," which the court does not find compelling in the foregoing analysis.

Third, the motion itself, especially sections/issues relating to the individual defendants, is fairly straightforward and simple. The material facts and evidence in support of each issue is clearly delineated under a different heading. It is not the case that the material facts and evidence for the different issues to be adjudicated are jumbled together, forcing Plaintiff to decipher which facts pertain to which issues. Therefore, the court does not agree with Plaintiff’s contention that the instant motion created a “jigsaw puzzle” for Plaintiff’s response.

Fourth, the issues at hand are interconnected as they all relate to punitive damages. Requesting summary adjudication on punitive damages for different defendants in a single motion promotes judicial efficiency and reduces the unnecessary multiplicity of legal proceedings.

Plaintiff makes a similar argument and points to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(f)(1), which states, "A party may move for summary adjudication… if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit…." Plaintiff emphasizes the usage of “A party” and “the party” in the provision to argue that each motion should only relate to one defendant. However, the same section of the statute that Plaintiff cites also states, "A party may move for summary adjudication... that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs." This clearly indicates that a single motion can adjudicate issues relating to different defendants. Consequently, the court does not see why a single motion cannot adjudicate one or more claims for damages involving one or more defendants.

Plaintiff further argues that a court cannot grant relief not specified in the notice of motion. However, the motion was properly served, and the notice clearly states, “Defendants MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS, LLC, MATTHEW ESPY, and MOSES BARRIOS (hereinafter 'Defendants') move the Court under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f)(1) for an order that summary adjudication of issues be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, STEVEN PARRIS (hereinafter 'Plaintiff'). The grounds for issuance of this order are that no triable issue exists as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the claim for punitive damages.” This motion was filed on April 4, 2023, providing Plaintiff with more than a year's notice that Defendants are seeking adjudication on the issue of punitive damages for all three defendants. Given the straightforward nature of the motion and the ample notice provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by this alleged procedural flaw.

Overall, the Court finds that it is not against the statutory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c to adjudicate Defendants’ claims for damages in one motion. In the event that it were, the court exercises its discretion to excuse this noncompliance.

Discussion

Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).)¿ “Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civil Code section 3294 (c)(1).) Under the statute, malice does not require actual intent to harm. Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences. (Pfeifer v.John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.) ‘Despicable’ is a powerful term that refers to circumstances that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible.’ (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)¿¿¿ 

Moses Barrios

The basis for Defendants’ summary adjudication as to punitive damages against Moses Barrios is that on the date of the incident, Mr. Barrios worked from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., as indicated in the Payroll Labor Detail Report (Exhibit "C"). Defendants cite the Deposition of Steven Parris at Page 21, Lines 22-25 and Page 22, Lines 1-6 (Exhibit "H") to support the contentions that: (a) the incident occurred after Mr. Barrios had clocked out for the day; (b) after the restaurant had officially closed, and (c) Mr. Barrios was not present in the men's restroom at the time of the alleged incident. However, Page 21 of Plaintiff’s deposition, the pertinent part of the cited deposition testimony, was not included with or attached to the moving papers. Thus, Defendants failed to meet their burden as the issue of punitive damages against Defendant Barrios. Summary adjudication as to this issue is DENIED.

Matthew Espy

For Defendant Matthew Espy, the manager of the restaurant on the day of the incident, evidence indicates that he took measures to address the wet conditions in the men’s bathroom. On the date of the incident, Mr. Espy instructed the employees, including bussers and hosts, to frequently clean the floors (Deposition of Matthew Espy, 13:13-18, Exhibit "D") and had employees inspect the restrooms two to three times every ten minutes prior to the incident (Deposition of Matthew Espy, Page 38, Lines 3-5.).Furthermore, Mr. Espy directed staff to place mats, use towels to dry the floors, and set up wet floor signs to warn customers of potentially wet conditions (Transcript of Recorded Statement of Matthew Espy, Pages 4-5, Exhibit "G"). The evidence demonstrates that Defendant Espy did not act with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others on the date of the incident. Plaintiff did not introduce any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact; therefore, summary adjudication as to Defendant Matthew Espy’s claim for punitive damages is hereby GRANTED.

        Mastro’s Restaurants

California Code, Civil Code § 3294(b), which governs punitive damages against corporations, provides: 

(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. 

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).¿¿ 

Plaintiff served special interrogatories requesting the identity of the managing agents and seeking documents, facts, or witnesses in support of the following allegations concerning Defendant's managing agents: they were aware that water was being tracked into the men's restroom on the evening of December 25, 2019 (Plaintiff's Response to Special Interrogatory from Defendant, Set One, Nos. 10-12); failed to install industry-standard slip-proof flooring (Plaintiff's Response to Special Interrogatory from Defendant, Set One, Nos. 14-16 "); were aware of a high number of slip and falls in the men's restroom at the Malibu Mastro's location (Plaintiff's Response to Special Interrogatory from Defendant, Set One, Nos. 23-25); encouraged employees not to maintain safety, mop, or place warning signs in the men's restroom of the Malibu Mastro’s location (Plaintiff's Response to Special Interrogatory from Defendant, Set One, Nos. 26, 28-30); and knew of and approved their employees' actions of leaving areas of the floor wet, despite knowing that it could lead to customer slip and falls at the Malibu Mastro’s location (Plaintiff's Response to Special Interrogatory from Defendant, Set One, Nos. 32-35).

In the discovery responses, Plaintiff failed to identify Defendant’s managing agent, let alone demonstrate that he/she had either ratified wrongful conduct or had advance knowledge of an employee’s propensity for such conduct. Moreover, the majority of the discovery responses "refer to the statement of the manager that was previously provided to the propounding party and was concurrently produced again." Upon reviewing the manager’s statement (Exhibit G), the court found no indication that a managing agent had advance knowledge of any employee’s unfitness or that a managing agent ratified the misconduct at issue, as required for awarding punitive damages against a corporate entity. Instead, the statement revealed that the restroom in question was checked and cleaned frequently, and that caution signs and mats were placed in the restroom on the date of the incident.

The Court thus finds Plaintiff’s discovery responses to be factually void, and therefore Defendant has successfully shifted its initial burden. Plaintiff did not present any evidence and failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Mastro’s Restaurants.

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.