Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 23SMCV04315, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 23SMCV04315, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court has not considered Defendant’s “Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff’s Additional Facts” in support of its motion, as this document is a reply separate statement not authorized by statute, and Defendant failed to seek leave of court to file such a document. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 [“There is no provision in the statute for” including a reply separate statement].)

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).)

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.)

In support of the motion, Defendant provides evidence that Plaintiff arrived at the BJ’s restaurant located at 6000 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1111, in Culver City on March 5, 2023, planning to dine at the restaurant; the restaurant had two doors, a main revolving door and a side takeout door; Plaintiff entered through the side takeout door at 1:41 p.m. and had no problems when she entered the restaurant; and after five minutes, Plaintiff decided to leave because she was not interested in dining due to the crowd. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 1-4, 16.) As Plaintiff was heading toward the side takeout door to leave, she allegedly slipped or tripped on a wet mat or carpet in front of the door, causing her to strike the door or door frame. (No. 5.) Plaintiff did not notice anything unusual about the mat when she entered the restaurant, but after her fall, she claims she could see water on the mat but no puddles of water. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 8-9.) Plaintiff asked for paramedics to make sure she was okay, they arrived at 1:55 and confirmed she was okay, and Plaintiff left the restaurant. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 10-13, 17.)

Defendant points to Plaintiff’s deposition testimony stating that she fell, called the paramedics, the paramedics came and confirmed she was okay, and she then went somewhere else to eat. (Def.’s Ex. 3 at 83:7-17.) Defense counsel then stated that there is “a big difference between falling and going somewhere else, and then coming back, or reporting it immediately after you fell and the paramedics coming to your aid” (Def.’s Ex. 3 at 84:3-7), and Plaintiff stated, “[W]e didn’t go and eat and come back, but we waited there for the paramedics to come, and they did” (Def.’s Ex. 3 at 84:8-11). Plaintiff was asked again if she went to eat after the paramedics saw her, and she responded, “Yes,” and when asked if she went anywhere after she ate at another restaurant, she stated that she did not. (Def.’s Ex. 3 at 90:17-19, 101:6-10)

The video footage shows Plaintiff interacting with the paramedics. (Def.’s UMF No. 17.) The video footage does not show a fall. (Def.’s UMF No. 18.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant is using deceptive footage because Plaintiff’s fall occurred at 12:30 p.m., and no evidence has been produced of that timeframe. (Pl.’s UMF No. 5.) Defendant counters that there is no evidence that the fall occurred at 12:30 p.m. in the record, but this is inaccurate, as Tommy Smith’s deposition testimony shows that defense counsel asked Mr. Smith during his deposition if he arrived at the mall around 12:30 p.m., he responded that she did, and he responded that they went straight to BJ’s restaurant when they arrived. (Pl.’s Ex. 2 at 34:10-15.)

Put simply, the Court finds there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff fell as alleged. Plaintiff and Tommy Smith’s combined testimony is that Plaintiff arrived at BJ’s restaurant at around 12:30 p.m., she fell, waited for the paramedics to come, the paramedics came and examined her, she then left to eat, and she did not go anywhere else. Video footage shows Plaintiff being examined by the paramedics at an entirely different time at 1:55 p.m. It follows that there is some discrepancy in Plaintiff’s timeline, but the exact discrepancy is not clear. It is possible, as Defendant argues, that Plaintiff was only present at BJ’s restaurant between 1:41 and 1:55 p.m., and video of that time shows no fall occurred. It also possible, though, that Plaintiff did fall around 12:30 p.m. on a wet mat, and she later returned to converse with paramedics. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is essentially trying to destroy her own credibility, but the Court reads the opposition and evidence as merely raising the possibility that Plaintiff made a mistake in her timeline of events. For these reasons, Defendant BJ’s Restaurants, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Defendant’s objects to Plaintiff’s complaint as hearsay. This objection is OVERRULED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), and the Court notes that Defendant appears to be objecting to the Court’s consideration of the complaint for a certain purpose, but this is not an objection to the evidence itself. The Court declines to rule on the remainder of Defendant’s objections, as the evidence at issue was not material to the Court’s ruling herein.