Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV28755, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

This action arises out of Plaintiff Kourosh Behzadi’s claim that he tripped and fell on an unsafe, uneven section of sidewalk on Dayton Way in Beverly Hills on October 24, 2021. Plaintiff initially filed the complaint against the City of Beverly Hills and Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, whom Plaintiff believed to be the adjacent property owner. After investigation, Plaintiff dismissed Coldwell Banker and substituted in Douglas Emmett, Inc. (“DE”) and Douglas Emmett Management, LLC (“DEM”) as the adjacent property owner and property manager. However, DE does not own, manage, or control the subject property. The actual owner is Douglas Emmett 2014, LLC (“DE 2014”), which has voluntarily appeared in the case as the true property owner. Defendants DE 2014, DE, and DEM now move for summary judgment on the grounds that they did not own, possess, or control the sidewalk where the incident occurred, pursuant to the sidewalk decision doctrine. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.

“[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.)

“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.)

Defendants rely on the “Sidewalk Accident Decisions” doctrine (the “sidewalk doctrine”), which governs property¿adjacent to¿a sidewalk. The sidewalk doctrine is based on case law explaining that sidewalks are public and thus¿adjacent landowners owe¿no duty to users of the sidewalk unless¿that¿property owner created the hazardous condition. Streets and Highways Code §5610 provides that owners of lots fronting on a public street shall¿maintain¿any¿sidewalk in a condition that will not endanger persons and not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works.¿¿Pursuant to¿Jones v. Deeter¿(1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798, 803, the duty imposed by this ordinance is owed to the city and not to persons using the sidewalk. “Under section 5610 the abutting owner bears the duty to repair defects in the sidewalk, regardless of whether he has created these defects. It was felt, however, that it would be unfair for such an owner to be held liable to travelers injured¿as a¿result of¿sidewalk defects which were not of the owner’s making. Thus, the ‘Sidewalk Accident Decisions’¿doctrine arose; this doctrine holds that the abutting property owner is not liable in tort to travelers injured on the sidewalk unless the owner somehow creates the injurious sidewalk condition.” (Deeter, 152 Cal.App.3d at 803.)

While generally a landowner is not liable for harm resulting from conditions or activities outside his property, on adjoining land or on the highway, street, or sidewalk, the landowner may be liable if the landowner created the defect or exercised dominion or control over the adjoining land (Jordan v. City of Sacramento¿(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1490-1491;¿Corcoran v. San Mateo¿(1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 355, 359;¿Schaefer v. Lenahan¿(1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 324, 326.)¿In settings where the abutting owners exercised control over the property such as by planting trees or habitually trimming or caring for them, these abutting owners have the duty to¿maintain¿the trees in a safe condition to make sure the roots do not cause a tripping hazard. (Alcaraz v. Vece¿(1997)¿14 Cal.4^th¿1149,¿1162.)

Furthermore, “a defendant need not own, possess and control property in order to be held liable; control alone is sufficient.” (Id.) A¿person¿is required to¿maintain¿“land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center¿(1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674.)¿¿In¿Alcaraz, the court held that because the defendant¿maintained¿the lawn surrounding the meter box, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the defendant exercised control over that strip of land and had a duty to warn others of the hazardous condition of the meter box.¿(Alcaraz v. Vece, 14 Cal.4^th¿at 1162.)

Douglas Emmett 2014, LLC (“DE 2014”) has been the sole owner of the property, a three-story commercial building located at 301 Canon Drive, generally known as the “Village on Canon,” since July 2015. (UMF No. 13.) All property management services for DE 2014, including maintenance and repair work, are performed by DEM for the benefit of DE 2014. (UMF No. 14.) In contrast, Douglas DE has no ownership interest in the property located at 301 Canon Drive in Beverly Hills. (UMF No. 16.) DE does not lease, control, manage, or operate the Village on Canon, nor is it involved in any way with the property’s management. (UMF Nos. 16–17.)

Defendants have therefore shown that DE has no relationship to the adjacent property in question and have met their initial burden. Plaintiff did not file an opposition and therefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, DE’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

The parties do not dispute that DE 2014 is the owner of the adjacent property and that DEM is the property manager for the subject property.

Defendants DE 2014 and DEM have met their burden under the sidewalk decision doctrine by establishing that they did not own, possess, control, or contribute to the alleged dangerous condition. The sidewalks adjacent to the property on Canon Drive and Dayton Way lie entirely outside the property boundaries of 301 Canon Drive. (UMF No. 19.) This is confirmed by the certified Psomas Land Survey dated August 27, 2019. (UMF No. 20.) The survey establishes that the subject sidewalk, including the area where Plaintiff allegedly fell, is owned by the City of Beverly Hills, not by any of the Moving Defendants.

As the sole property manager for DE 2014, DEM only performs cleaning, maintenance, and repair within the property boundaries. (UMF No. 21.) Neither DE 2014 nor DEM has ever performed any maintenance or repair work on the City sidewalks outside the property boundary, including sweeping leaves or debris from the area where Plaintiff allegedly fell. (UMF Nos. 23–24.) Additionally, no City agency or any other entity ever instructed Defendants to maintain or repair the sidewalk or to remove debris or hazards from that location. (UMF No. 25.)

Defendants never exercised any form of control over the public sidewalks outside the property boundary, including the precise location of the alleged fall. (UMF No. 26.) Finally, Defendants did not plant or maintain the tree allegedly associated with the sidewalk defect. (UMF No. 27.) Accordingly, Defendants have demonstrated they neither owned nor controlled the subject sidewalk nor caused the alleged dangerous condition.

Defendants have met their burden, and Plaintiff did not file an opposition to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted as to DEM and DE 2014.

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’s 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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court