Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV19559, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19559    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

A.   Prior proceedings 

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff Audrey Choi (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Cliff Choi, filed this action against Defendants LA Pony Rides, Los Angeles Pony Rides, Inc., Griffith Park Pony Rides, Griffith Park Pony Rides and Petting Zoo, and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On June 24, 2022, the Court appointed Cliff Choi to serve as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. 

On November 10, 2022, Defendant Los Angeles Pony Rides, Inc. dba Griffith Park Pony Rides (“Defendant”) filed an answer. 

On December 21, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.  The motion was set for hearing on May 16, 2024.  On March 1, 2024, Defendant withdrew the motion. 

On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem Cliff Choi, filed a first amended complaint against Defendants LA Pony Rides, Los Angeles Pony Rides, Inc., Griffith Park Pony Rides, Griffith Park Pony Rides and Petting Zoo, and Does 1-50 for gross negligence. 

On February 26, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and premises liability with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On March 11, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to the first amended complaint. 

On October 4, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.  The motion was set for hearing on December 19, 2024.  On November 4, 2024, based on the stipulation of Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court continued the hearing to March 20, 2025.  On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 7, 2025, Defendant filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to May 28, 2025. 

Trial is currently scheduled for August 11, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Defendant asks the Court to grant summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion. 

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

          Defendant’s request:

                    Granted: 1-3 (the Court judicially notices the existence of the first amended complaint and answer but not the truth of the allegations they contain) 

          Plaintiff’s request:

          Denied:  A-F

Granted: G (the Court judicially notices the existence of the complaint filed in another case but not the truth of the allegations it contains)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

A.   Defendant’s objections 

Overruled: All (1-3) 

B.   Plaintiff’s objections 

Weeks declaration (Exh. E)

          Overruled: 1-2, 4-9

          Sustained: 3

 Rodriguez declaration (Exh. F):

Overruled: All (1-11)

Elvira Elicea declaration

Overruled:  1-4, 6-7, 9

Sustained:  5 (first sentence of objection only), 8 (bold language in objection only)           

LEGAL STANDARD 

A.   Summary judgment and summary adjudication 

“‘[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”  (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 949, 945, quoting Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar).) “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)  

          When the moving party is a defendant, it must show that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action.  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853.) “The defendant has shown that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.”  (Id. at p. 854.) The defendant must “present evidence, and not simply point out that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.”  (Ibid.) Thus, “the defendant must ‘support[ ]’ the ‘motion’ with evidence including ‘affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice’ must or may ‘be taken.’ [Citation.] The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.”  (Id. at p. 855, original emphasis.)  

          “Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations . . . shall set forth admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (d).) “Matters which would be excluded under the rules of evidence if proffered by a witness in a trial as hearsay, conclusions or impermissible opinions, must be disregarded in supporting affidavits.”  (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.) 

          In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all the evidence and all the inferences reasonably drawn from it and must view such evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party.  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.)  “[A] court cannot grant summary judgment based on inferences that are contradicted by other inferences or evidence. And a triable issue of fact exists when the evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to find a contested fact in favor of the party opposing the motion.  [Citation.] Put slightly differently, a summary judgment may not be granted unless the evidence is incapable of supporting a judgment for the losing party.” (California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1272, 1296.) 

B.   Gross negligence 

“[O]rdinary negligence ‘consists of a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm.’ ” (Anderson v. Fitness International, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 867, 881 (Anderson), quoting City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 753-754 (City of Santa Barbara).) “ ‘ “[M]ere nonfeasance, such as the failure to discover a dangerous condition or to perform a duty,” ’ amounts to ordinary negligence.” (Ibid., quoting Frittelli, Inc. v. 350 North Canon Drive, LP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 35, 48.) 

“However, to support a theory of ‘ “[g]ross negligence,” ’ a plaintiff must allege facts showing ‘either a “ ‘want of even scant care’ ” ’ or ‘ “ ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.’ ” [Citations.]’ ” (Anderson, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 881, quoting City of Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 754.) “ ‘ “ ‘[G]ross negligence’ falls short of a reckless disregard of consequences, and differs from ordinary negligence only in degree, and not in kind . . . .” ’ ” (Ibid., quoting Gore v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 184, 197; see Rosecrans v. Dover Images, Ltd. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1082 [gross negligence is pleaded by alleging “extreme conduct on the part of the defendant” in addition to the traditional negligence elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages].) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   The first amended complaint 

The first complaint includes the following allegations: 

On July 17, 2021, Defendants owned, leased, occupied, and/or controlled the property located at 4400 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR., LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 (“premises”).  Defendants were grossly negligent in the manner in which they owned, leased, occupied, controlled, maintained, managed, leased, and/or operated the premises, including the pony rides and petting zoo. 

Defendants willfully and knowingly allowed a single 18-year-old employee with no prior experience or training with horses [to] watch three large horses, two of which had minor children on them.  This individual was nowhere to be found in critical moments before the horse Plaintiff was riding became spooked and darted off as Plaintiff was strapped to her saddle upside down being dragged on the dirt head/face first.  Defendants failed to execute caution and preventative measures, allowing a dangerous condition to exist which caused Plaintiff to sustain serious injuries. 

Defendants also built, designed, and/or created the dangerous condition which was known to them and concealed the dangerous condition from Plaintiff and her parents, causing Plaintiff to sustain serious injuries. 

B.   Undisputed facts 

This action arises from a pony riding related accident that occurred on Saturday, July 17, 2021 at LA Pony Rides’ “pony ride experience” located at 4400 Crystal Springs Dr., Los Angeles, California, 90027.  Plaintiff, who was eleven years old, was attending the pony ride experience with her family. 

The family arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., purchased their tickets, and were directed to a "big pony" named Philip for Plaintiff’s ride.  Philip was approximately 20 years old.  The big pony ride experience involved two laps around an enclosed ring. 

Before allowing Plaintiff to ride a pony, Plaintiff’s mother, Luana Choi, signed a liability waiver printed on the receipt for her purchase of the pony ride. 

Plaintiff and her younger sister were each mounted on a pony selected by staff member Eion Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), and each rider was allowed two laps around the oval track. 

At the start of Plaintiff’s ride, Rodriguez noticed that Plaintiff was leaning to her right. 

Third-party witness and patron Jennie Nes, who was attending a nearby birthday party, captured a 14-second video clearly showing Philip bolting while dragging Plaintiff, who was hanging upside down under Philip’s belly.  

C.   Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant was grossly negligent because the accident was the result of a risk inherent in the sport of horseback riding: a saddle slipping on the horse while a person is riding the horse.  (Motion p. 19.)  According to Defendant, Plaintiff cannot present evidence that Defendant took any actions that increased this inherent risk.  (Motion p. 20.) 

Assuming for the sake of argument that Defendant has carried its initial burden of proof on summary judgment by showing that a slipping saddle is an inherent risk of horseback riding, Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether Defendant’s actions increased that risk and caused Plaintiff’s injuries. 

Plaintiff has presented evidence that Defendant did not provide adequate instructions to Plaintiff about how to avoid having the saddle slip while Plaintiff was riding the pony.  Although Defendant presented evidence that Rodriguez told Plaintiff not to lean while riding (which could cause the saddle to slip), Plaintiff testified that she was told only to hold onto the saddle.  Plaintiff has also presented evidence that, once Rodriguez noticed that Plaintiff was leaning to one side, Rodriguez should have stopped the pony and ended Plaintiff’s ride to avoid an accident.  In addition, Plaintiff has presented evidence that Defendant’s staff did not properly saddle the pony (causing the saddle to slip) and Rodriguez lacked the ability to properly monitor three ponies (including Plaintiff's pony Philip) at the same time.  Plaintiff also points to evidence that Defendant should have required Plaintiff to wear a helmet while riding the pony. 

Based on this evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether Defendant increased the inherent risk of horseback riding.  The Court therefore denies Defendant’s motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles Pony Rides, Inc. dba Griffith Park Pony Rides’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.