Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00777, Date: 2024-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00777    Hearing Date: August 22, 2024    Dept: SEC

PRIETO v. REZA

CASE NO.:  23NWCV00777

HEARING:  08/22/24

#4

Defendants’ CAROL REZA and BRIDGE OF FAITH’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)

This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff RICARDO R. PRIETO (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants CAROL REZA (“Reza”) and BRIDGE OF FAITH (“BOF”) (collectively “Defendants”) on March 14, 2023.

Plaintiff alleges the following relevant facts: “On or about February 06, 2023… Plaintiff was lawfully at his home located at 13909 Mystic St. Whittier, CA 90605, taking his trash cans out. [¶] While Plaintiff was on his property, Defendants’ pit bull charged at, bit and attacked Plaintiff. The subject dog bit Plaintiff multiple times in the hand, arm, and fingers.” (Complaint ¶¶11-12.)

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Negligence;

(2) Strict Liability (Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §3342); and

(3) Strict Liability

Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish liability because: (1) Defendants were not the owners or keepers of the dog; and (2) Defendants had no actual knowledge of the dog on the premises, or of it’s dangerous propensities.

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. Therefore, the Motion is unopposed.

Cal. Civ. Code §3342(a) imposes a duty of care on every dog owner to prevent his or her dog from biting persons while in a public place or lawfully on private property. “The statute is designed to prevent dogs from becoming a hazard to the community by holding dog owners to such a standard of care, and assigning strict liability for its breach.” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1120.) Statutory strict liability applies only to the dog’s owner. (See Cal. Civ. Code §3342(a).)

“[A] landlord is under no duty to inspect the premises for the purpose of discovering the existence of a tenant’s dangerous animal; only when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal, coupled with the right to have it removed form the premises, does a duty of care arise.” (Lundy v. California Realty (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 813, 821.)  

Alternatively, a common law strict liability cause of action may only be maintained against a dog’s keeper in dog bite cases if the keeper knew or had reason to know of the animal’s vicious propensities. (See Priebe, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 1115-1116.) 

The following facts are undisputed:

(1) Dazanea Lawson leased the Premises from Defendants and was prohibited from keeping “any dog, cat, other bird, animal, and other such things” per paragraph 3 of the Lease Agreement (SS No.3.)

(2) Dazanea Lawon was the owner of the dog that attacked Plaintiff. (SS No. 5.)

(3) Defendants were not the owners of the dog. The dog lived with Dazanea Lawson, without Defendants’ knowledge or consent. (SS Nos. 5-6.)

(4) Defendants first learned of the Subject Incident upon being served with the Summons and Complaint in this action. (SS No. 8.)

As indicated, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to this Motion. Therefore, Defendants’ evidence is uncontroverted. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants: were not the owners/keepers of the dog; had no actual knowledge that the dog was on the premises; and had no knowledge of the dog’s propensities. All submitted evidence conclusively establishes that the dog belonged to Dazanea Lawson, and Defendants had no knowledge that Ms. Lawson had a dog on the Subject Property on the day of the Subject Incident.

Defendants have met the burden of proof showing that Plaintiff cannot establish their claims for strict liability and negligence against Defendants.

The unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.