Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV06570, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV06570 Hearing Date: November 26, 2024 Dept: 27
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT¿AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Hearing Date: 11/26/24¿
CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV06570 DESTINIE GABRIELLE NEAL vs PANROSE
CORPORATION, INC et al.
Moving Party: Defendants PANROSE CORPORATION, INC. and HARVEY PLOTNIK
Responding Party: Unopposed
Notice: Sufficient
¿
Ruling: GRANTED
Background
In February 2022, Plaintiff
brought this lawsuit alleging that on February 19, 2020, she went to the store
to return a sandwich that she purchased. She further alleged that she was
assaulted on the premises after requesting a refund. Based on these
allegations, Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: intentional battery,
negligent hiring, supervision, and training, and respondeat superior, against
Defendants Panrose Corporation and Harvey Plotnik, the owner of the store and
the employee who allegedly attacked her.
On December 6, 2023,
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
That unopposed motion is now before the Court.
Plaintiff’s Admissions
On November 29, 2023,
the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to have Requests for Admissions Propounded
upon Plaintiff Deemed Admitted. As a result of the Court’s order, Plaintiff
admitted the following: (1) Defendants are not liable for her allegation of
battery (RFA No. 3), (2) Defendants are not liable for negligent hiring,
supervision, and training (RFA No. 4), and (3) Defendants are not liable under
respondeat superior (RFA No. 5). (Exhibits B, F to Khurin Declaration).
Summary Judgment 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”].)
Defendant’s Initial
Burden
Under Code of Civil
Procedure § 2033.410, the Court’s order deeming the RFAs admitted conclusively
establishes the admissions against Plaintiff in the pending action. Plaintiff
has admitted that Defendants are not liable for any of the asserted causes of
action. Defendants have therefore met their initial burden.
Plaintiff’s Burden
Plaintiff did not file
an opposition and has thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted.
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.