Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV00845, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV00845 Hearing Date: May 28, 2024 Dept: 27
Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Hearing Date: 5/28/24
CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV00845 NADEAN BURNES vs
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Moving Party: Defendant 451 North La Cienega,
LLC
Responding Party: Plaintiff
Notice: Sufficient
Ruling: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED
Background
On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the
present complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and 451 North La
Cienega, LLC alleging that she tripped and fell on a public sidewalk located
adjacent to premises owned by Defendant 451 North La Cienega. Defendant now
moves for summary judgment, asserting that it does not control, own, or
maintain the sidewalk at issue and, therefore, is not liable under the sidewalk
accident decision doctrine.
Legal Standard
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).)¿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”].)
Judicial Notice
The court GRANTS Defendant’s requests for
judicial notice.
Sidewalk Accident Decisions Doctrine
Defendant
relies on the “Sidewalk Accident Decisions” doctrine, which governs property adjacent to a sidewalk. The 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.4th 1149,
1162.) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1167
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.4th
at 1162.)
Discussion
The primary issue in
contention is whether Defendant 451 North La Cienega maintained or controlled
the sidewalk where the incident allegedly occurred. On July 27, 2022, the
incident took place on a public sidewalk adjacent to property owned by
Defendant at 451 North La Cienega. (See photographs of the sidewalk, Exhibit C
to Declaration of Arash Danialifar). Arash Danialifar, the owner of 451 North
La Cienega, asserts that the location where Plaintiff fell is public property
belonging to the City of Los Angeles, and Defendant 451 North La Cienega does
not own, maintain, or control the sidewalk location in question. (Declaration
of Arash Danialifar ¶ 9-18). Defendant has fulfilled its initial burden of
demonstrating that it does not maintain or control the sidewalk location at
issue.
Plaintiff does not
dispute that the incident occurred on a public sidewalk adjacent to Defendant's
premises located at 451 North La Cienega Blvd. (Plf’s response to UMF 27.) In
meeting her burden to raise triable issue of fact, Plaintiff must introduce concrete
evidence and cannot rely on speculation. Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant
451 NLC LLC “might have been responsible in several different ways for the
defect” is insufficient. (Opposition at pg. 9.) A party cannot avoid summary
judgment based on mere speculation and conjecture but must produce admissible
evidence that raises a triable issue of fact. (Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger
& Harrison (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1524.) "If Plaintiff cannot
do so, summary judgment should be granted." (Avivi v. Centro Medico
Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.)
Plaintiff attempted but
failed to introduce concrete evidence that Defendant controlled the sidewalk in
question. First, Plaintiff points to Arash Danialifar's declaration that
Defendant 451 NLC LLC, as the owner of the premises located at 451 North La Cienega,
Los Angeles, CA, is responsible for overseeing and managing the premises from
the date of the incident to the present. However, upon examining the
declaration, Danialifar explicitly states that Defendant does not control or
oversee the sidewalk location in question, as Defendant does not consider it
part of its premises. Second, Plaintiff contends that Defendant 451 NLC LLC has
performed daily sweeping in front of the building since 2005. However, the
deposition testimony does not support Plaintiff's contention, as Danialifar
states he does not know if his tenants performed daily sweeping in front of the
building. (Danialifar’s Depo 53:2-4.)
Finally, Plaintiff
points to several documents indicating that Defendant was ordered to remove
river rocks from one of the sidewalk locations. Specifically, on April 19,
2020, the city inspected 451 North La Cienega Blvd, 90048, and found
unpermitted work on the sidewalk, causing a permanent obstruction to the public
right of way. A Notice of Violation was issued to the property owner, ordering
the owner to obtain a valid permit and return the sidewalk to its previous
condition. It was noted that bushes blocking the Public Right-of-Way had been
in place since 2007 and were removed and replaced with river rocks between 2016
and 2018. (Plf’s Ex. 6.) On May 11-12, 2020, the property owner agreed to
comply with the city’s request to remove the river rocks from the sidewalk and
return it to the original condition. (Plf’s Ex. 8.)
The river rock evidence
is insufficient to uphold Plaintiff’s burden.
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the river rocks were located where
the incident occurred or that Defendant exercised control over the sidewalk
location where the incident allegedly occurred. Second, Plaintiff has only
shown one instance where Defendant made alterations to the sidewalk by placing
river rocks; however, without more evidence, this does not constitute the type
of systemic control that case law has envisioned to impose liability on an
adjacent property owner. In Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, for
instance, control was established as the adjacent property owner regularly
maintained the strip of public land, mowed the lawn, and built a fence to
enclose it. But, the court also held that the simple act of mowing a lawn on
adjacent property (or otherwise performing minimal, neighborly maintenance of
property owned by another) generally does not, when standing alone, give rise
to control over the property. (Alcaraz, 14 Cal.4th at1167.) Third, the
fact that Defendant removed the river rocks upon the city’s inspection and
request indicates that it is the city, and not the Defendant, that has control
over the sidewalk.
Plaintiff has failed to
raise a triable issue of fact relating to Defendant’s possession and control
over the sidewalk location at issue. Thus, Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED.
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.