Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV21022, Date: 2024-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21022    Hearing Date: July 26, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: 7/26/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV21022 MARIA ESTRADA vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Moving Party: Defendants Breck Nichols and Paola Sequeira

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED

Background 

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present action against Defendants the City of Los Angeles, Breck Nichols, and Paola Sequeira for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that she tripped over an uneven/broken sidewalk adjacent to the property located at 3323 Jeffries, Los Angeles, California. Defendants Nichols and Sequeira own the property adjacent to the sidewalk at issue. Defendants now move the court for summary judgment on the bases that they have no control over the sidewalk at issue and did not cause the dangerous condition that led to Plaintiff's fall. On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition, communicating to the court that she does not wish to contest the present motion.

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”].) 

SIDEWALK ACCIDENT DECISIONS DOCTRINE 

               The “Sidewalk Accident Decisions” doctrine (the “sidewalk doctrine”) governs liability relating to 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 to third parties 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 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, supra., 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 when defendant had notice of the condition. (Alcaraz, 14 Cal.4^th at 1162.) 

Discussion

Defendants introduced evidence showing that the uneven/broken sidewalk where the incident occurred was located on the public walkway beyond the property’s property line. (Declaration of Gregory Amoroso and exhibits 1-3; Deposition of Maria Estrada at pages 1-4, 18:8-20:19, 23:11-21, 28:10-21 and 63:1-21 attached as exhibit C; Declaration of Raquel Vallejo and exhibit E.) The uneven/broken sidewalk on the public walkway was not created by Defendants. (Declaration of Gregory Amoroso and exhibits 1-3; Deposition of Maria Estrada at pages 1-4, 18:8-20:19, 23:11-21, 28:10-21 and 63:1-21 attached as exhibit C; Declaration of Raquel Vallejo and exhibit E.) The uneven/broken public sidewalk was caused by the London planetree located in the public parkway. (Declaration of Frederick Roth, ¶5-6; Declaration of Gregory Amoroso and exhibits 1-3.) The city owns, inspects and makes repairs to public sidewalks. (City of Los Angeles responses to plaintiff’s special interrogatories number 3-4 attached as exhibit D; Declaration of Gregory Amoroso and exhibits 1-3.)

Defendants have met their initial burden by showing that they did not control the sidewalk in question nor did they create the uneven or broken sidewalk that caused Plaintiff’s trip and fall. Plaintiff does not oppose the present motion. Thus, Defendants Breck Nichols and Paola Sequeira'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 without leave.