Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV34670, Date: 2024-12-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34670 Hearing Date: December 23, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff Carmeletta Mobley (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ross Dress for Less (Agent) CT Corporation System for general negligence and premises liability.
On December 12, 2022, Defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (erroneously sued and served as Ross Dress for Less (Agent) CT Corporation System) (“Defendant”) filed an answer.
On November 20, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Plaintiff.
On June 28, 2024, at the direction of the Master Calendar Department, Department 1/Supervising Judge, the case was assigned to Judge Craig Richman in Department 119 at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center for trial. However, after conferring with Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel, the Court concluded that Plaintiff was not ready to proceed. The Court continued the trial to July 11, 2024.
On July 11, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s oral request to continue the trial and continued the trial over Defendant’s objection to August 1, 2024.
On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on March 10, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
On August 1, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the trial. The Court continued the trial to January 22, 2025. In addition, the Court advanced the hearing on Defendant’s summary judgment motion to December 9, 2024. The Court later continued the hearing on the summary judgment motion to December 23, 2024.
On August 8, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the Court’s November 20, 2023 deeming admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Plaintiff.
Trial is currently set for January 22, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Defendant asks the Court to grant summary judgment.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Summary judgment
“‘[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 addition, a party moving for summary judgment must support the motion with “a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.” (Parkview Villas Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2006) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) The party opposing the motion must file with the opposition papers “a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating whether the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts that the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).) If either party fails to comply with the applicable separate statement requirement, that failure may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground to decide the motion adversely to the offending party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b)(1), (3).)
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.)
B. Premises liability and negligence
“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.)
“ ‘ “Generally, one owes a duty of ordinary care not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to others....” ' [Citation.]” (Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 404, 411 (Salinas), quoting Padilla v. Rodas (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 742, 747 (Padilla).) “ ‘Civil Code section 1714 sets forth the general duty of a property owner toward others: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” The application of this provision entails an inquiry as to “whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable [person] in view of the probability of injury to others....” [Citations.]’ ” (Id. at pp. 411-412, quoting Laico v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 649, 659 (Laico).) “A landowner ‘ “ ‘has an affirmative duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and therefore must inspect them or take other proper means to ascertain their condition. And if, by the exercise of reasonable care, he would have discovered the dangerous condition, he is liable.’ ” ’ [Citation.]’ ” (Id. at p. 412, quoting Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1134.)
“ ‘An exception to the statutory rule of liability for failure to use ordinary care in the management of one's property requires clear support in public policy.’ ” (Salinas, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 412, quoting Laico, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at pp. 659–660.) “ ‘ “In the case of a landowner's liability for injuries to persons on the property, the determination of whether a duty exists, ‘involves the balancing of a number of considerations; the major ones are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.’ [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Ibid., quoting Rinehart v. Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 419, 430.) “ ‘Foreseeability and the extent of the burden to the defendant are ordinarily the crucial considerations, but in a given case one or more of the other Rowland factors may be determinative of the duty analysis.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1213.) “The existence and scope of a defendant's duty is a question of law for the court's resolution.” (Ibid., citing Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 488; Padilla, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.)
C. Requests for admission
“[Requests for admission] are different from other civil discovery tools such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents. ‘Most of the other discovery procedures are aimed primarily at assisting counsel to prepare for trial. Requests for admissions, on the other hand, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried.’ ” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774-775, quoting Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) “[A]dmission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘[T]he purpose of the admissions procedure ... is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” (Id. at p. 775, quoting Hogan & Weber, 1 Cal. Civil Discovery (2d ed. 2005) § 9.1, p. 9–2, fns. omitted.) “Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence.” (Ibid., citing Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint alleges the following:
On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff visited the Ross Dress for Less store on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. Plaintiff reached for a pair of shoes on a rack and “was met with an empty metal bar that blended into the background of the store and went unnoticed to [Plaintiff’s] attention since the bar wasn’t properly shelved with merchandise and/or apparel.” Plaintiff then “went to lean in to inspect the shoes at the bottom of the [shelf] and struck [her] head (full force) on the metal object.” As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered injuries and seeks compensatory damages.
B. Undisputed facts
Ross Dress For Less, Inc., and its employees or agents were not responsible for the incident described in Plaintiff’s complaint.
The metal display bar on which Plaintiff allegedly struck her head was open and obvious.
The incident was the result of Plaintiff’s own negligence.
The location of the metal display bar did not constitute a hazard to anyone exercising reasonable care. The only manner in which someone might injure themselves by striking their head on the metal display bar was by failing to exercise reasonable care.
Plaintiff incurred no loss of earnings or loss of earnings capacity as a result of the incident.
Plaintiff suffered no personal injuries and incurred no medical expenses as a result of the incident. Plaintiff was not treated by a medical practitioner.
C. Defendant has carried its initial burden on summary judgment
The undisputed facts show that Defendant was not negligent, that any negligence by Defendant did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries, and that Plaintiff did not suffer injuries or incur damages as a result of the accident. Defendant has carried its initial burden on summary judgment, shifting the burden to Plaintiff.
D. Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff therefore has not raised a triable issue of fact.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.
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.