Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 23SMCV00997, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 23SMCV00997, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00997 Hearing Date: December 13, 2024 Dept: N

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant/Cross-Defendant SP Plus Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant SP Plus Corporation to give notice.

REASONING

Defendant/Cross-Defendant SP Plus Corporation (“SP Plus”) moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff Thomas Greco (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants/Cross-Complainants N & J - #1, L.P and Ness Moadeb (“Defendants”). Plaintiff and Defendants oppose the motion on the ground there remains a triable issue of material fact. As an initial matter, the Court notes that SP Plus has filed two summary judgment motions as one, that is, SP Plus seeks judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint and judgment on Defendants’ First Amended Cross-Complaint. It follows that SP Plus should have filed two motions and obtained two hearing reservations, but it failed to do so. While the Court would be within its discretion to make one motion off calendar and require SP Plus to refile its motion, the Court opts to consider both motions. However, SP Plus is required to pay a second motion filing fee of $435.00 within ten (10) days of entry of this order, and the Court notes that further failures to comply with the Court’s hearing reservation system will result in the motion being placed off calendar.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie 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).) “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.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467 (Avivi).)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “[T]he court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection) . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Analysis

Plaintiff alleges claims for premises liability and general negligence against SP Plus based on allegations that Plaintiff slipped and fell due to a dangerous condition at 984 Monument Street in Pacific Palisades; specifically, on March 15, 2021, Plaintiff fell due to a slippery wet surface creating a slip hazard. (Compl., pp. 5-6.) Defendants seek indemnity and contribution on the ground that if Plaintiff sustained injuries, it was a direct result of SP Plus’s negligence, and SP Plus agreed to indemnify N & J - #1, L.P. (First Am. Cross-Compl., pp. 2, 3.)

To establish a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must establish the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) “The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “Premises liability is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158, quotation marks omitted.)

“Equitable indemnity, which requires no contractual relationship, is premised on a joint legal obligation to another for damages; it is subject to allocation of fault principles and comparative equitable apportionment of loss.” (C.W. Howe Partners Inc. v. Mooradian (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 688, 700, quotation marks omitted.) “The elements of a cause of action for equitable indemnity are (1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor and (2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is equitably responsible.” (Ibid., quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted.) A claim for contribution requires evidence of (1) “a money judgment,” (2) “rendered jointly against two or more defendants in a tort action,” (3) “in accordance with the principles of equity,” (4) “after one tortfeasor has, by payment, discharged the joint judgment or has paid more than his pro rata share thereof,” (5) without intentional injury by the tortfeasor. (Code Civ. Proc., § 875, subds. (a)-(d).) “An indemnitee seeking to recover on an agreement for indemnification must allege the parties’ contractual relationship, the indemnitee’s performance of that portion of the contract which gives rise to the indemnification claim, the facts showing a loss within the meaning of the parties’ indemnification agreement, and the amount of damages sustained.” (Four Star Electric, Inc. v. F & H Construction (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1380.)

SP Plus provides evidence that it generally staffed the subject garage on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., it provided management services at the garage, and it had one person on site during the staffing times. (SP Plus’s UMF Nos. 3, 4.) The incident at issue occurred on March 15, 2021 before 8:10 a.m., before any SP Plus employee commenced work at the parking structure, and it was raining lightly on that day. (SP Plus’s UMF Nos. 1, 2, 5.) SP Plus had no maintenance responsibilities at the location over the weekend, it had no responsibilities at the location for over 48 hours prior to the incident, and it had no responsibility to maintain the physical structure of the parking lot. (SP Plus’s UMF Nos. 6-8.) SP Plus also provides evidence that the Parking Management Contract required indemnity to the owner only in the event of SP Plus’s negligence. (SP Plus’s UMF No. 9.)

Plaintiff provides evidence that the duties under the Parking Management Contract were somewhat vague. The contract is silent regarding timing of work at the parking garage, including whether work was required earlier in the day if there had been a weather event requiring additional attention, and the contract is vague as to SP Plus’s maintenance duties at the garage, as parking attendant Doroteo Ortiz testified that many duties were not included in the contract. (Pl.’s UMF No. 3.) Reference to the contract confirms there is no listed time for duty, as the contract states that days and hours of operation and the number of employees necessary would be determined by the owner and the operator. (Mot., Flokas Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) Evidence that one individual was on site on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. does not show that SP Plus did not have a duty to provide more than that coverage. The duties are also vague, as “[m]anagement and operation of the parking facility” could include any sort of work, including the work SP Plus claims it was not required to perform. (Ibid.)

The Court finds there remains a triable issue of material fact as to whether SP Plus can be liable for Plaintiff’s injuries because SP Plus may have been negligent in its duties under the contract. Because the contract required indemnification where SP Plus may have been negligent, and there remains a triable issue as to negligence, there is also a triable issue as to whether indemnification is warranted. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Defendant SP Plus Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.