Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22STCV25883, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV25883 Hearing Date: May 23, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Mercedes Sevilla v. Starbucks Corporation, et al.
Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court DENIES Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a hot coffee case. On August 10, 2022, plaintiff Mercedes Sevilla (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks), Jacklyn Saucedo, and Does 1 through 100. On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging causes of action for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. On May 2, 2023, the Court sustained Starbucks’ demurrer to the First and Third Causes of Action in the FAC without leave to amend, leaving only the Second Cause of Action for negligence.
On February 26, 2024, Starbucks moved for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On May 16, 2024, Starbucks replied.
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. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “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, italics in original and quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)
“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, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see also Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.)
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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion “shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.; see also Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
The Court OVERRULES each of Starbucks’ evidentiary objections. First, the Court finds nothing speculative or lacking foundation regarding paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s declaration. Plaintiff indicates she made this statement based on her prior experiences with Starbucks. (See Sevilla Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff does not indicate what caused the lid to be unsecured, but only states that it had not been secured, which is a reasonable inference to make given that it did in fact come off. (See Id.) The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s declaration does not contradict her deposition testimony. Plaintiff only stated in her deposition that she saw the lid appeared to be on top of the cup, not that it was secured. (See Id.; Baxter Decl., Ex. B, 29:21-30:2.)
Second, the Court finds paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s declaration regarding the temperature of the coffee that burned her skin to be directly relevant and not lacking foundation, as it stands to reason that Plaintiff would know if the coffee was too hot. (See Sevilla Decl,. ¶ 5.) Third, while objections may be made to evidence submitted in support of a Separate Statement, the Separate Statements themselves are not evidence to which an objection may be asserted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)
DISCUSSION
Summary of Undisputed Material Facts
On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff placed an online order with Starbucks for a cup of coffee and some half-and-half. (SSF 1.) Plaintiff drove to the store location in West Covina, parked her car in the parking lot, and walked into the store to pick it up. (SSF 2-4.) Plaintiff was inside the store for less than one minute. (SSF 11.) Plaintiff picked up the coffee, which had a cardboard sleeve and a green stopper inserted in the cup lid, and the half-and-half. (SSF 5-7.) The lid was on the coffee cup when Plaintiff picked it up. (SSF 8.) Plaintiff left the store with the coffee drink in her left hand and the cup of half-and-half with her car keys in her right hand. (SSF 10-12.) Plaintiff was in the parking lot and approaching her car when the lid slipped off the cup. (SSF 13-14.) The lid did not fall all of the way off of the cup due to the stopper. (SSF 16.) After the spill, Plaintiff walked to her car and set the coffee cup on top of the car. (SSF 17.) More than three quarters of the coffee remained in the cup. (SSF 19.) Plaintiff removed her sweater. (SSF 20.)
Second Cause of Action – Negligence
“To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, (2) the defendant breached the duty, and (3) the breach proximately or legally caused (4) the plaintiff's damages or injuries.” (Thomas v. Stenberg (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 654, 662.) Starbucks contends no triable issue of material fact exists regarding a duty of care, breach, or causation on the part of Starbucks, and that Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence is therefore subject to summary judgment. The Court will address each of these elements below.
Duty
“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.” (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a).) “[D]uty is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.” (Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 803, 830, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.)
Starbucks does not dispute that it owes a general duty of care to customers within its premises and to serve beverages that are safe, but argues that that duty cannot reasonably extend to areas beyond its control. Starbucks contends that it provided Plaintiff with a properly prepared coffee cup, and that once it was in Plaintiff’s possession and Plaintiff walked out of the store to her car, Starbucks’ duty to Plaintiff ended. Starbucks contends that it cannot reasonably foresee how a customer will handle beverages once the customer takes possession of the cup and leaves the store, and that its actions are too attenuated from Plaintiff’s injuries.
In opposition, Plaintiff contends Starbucks provided no authority to support its contention that it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care at the time of the incident. Plaintiff contends the fact that she was in the parking lot at the time of the incident does not eliminate Starbucks’ duty of care to provide her with a beverage in a safe condition and temperature regardless of her location. Plaintiff contends Starbucks’ duty of care to provide safe beverages to customers does not disappear once those customers leave the store and walk into the parking lot.
The Court finds that Starbucks has failed to establish the absence of a duty of care owed to Plaintiff. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Starbucks failed to cite any authority directly supporting its contention that it no longer owed Plaintiff a duty once she left the store with the coffee cup and was walking toward her car. (See Motion, 5:17-7:12.) In fact, Starbucks acknowledges that it owed Plaintiff a duty of care to provide a safe beverage. (Motion, 6:10-11; see also Shih v. Starbucks Corporation (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1067, internal quotation marks and citations omitted [“A manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in ... its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.”]) Plaintiff’s negligence claim is based on Starbucks’ alleged failure to secure the lid on the coffee cup, provide coffee at a safe temperature, and warn Plaintiff that the lid was not secured and that the coffee was at a dangerously hot temperature. (FAC, ¶¶ 14-17, 32-36.) Taken to its logical extreme, Starbucks’ version of its duty of care would end as soon as the customer picks up the coffee, regardless of what happened before or after. Thus, where the accident occurred is not necessarily dispositive here.
Moreover, with respect to foreseeability, the Court does not find Starbucks’ arguments availing.
The most important factor to consider in determining whether to create an exception to the general duty to exercise ordinary care articulated by section 1714 is whether the injury in question was foreseeable. [Citation.] For purposes of duty analysis, foreseeability is not to be measured by what is more probable than not, but includes whatever is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably thoughtful [person] would take account of it in guiding practical conduct. ... [I]t is settled that what is required to be foreseeable is the general character of the event or harm—e.g., being struck by a car while standing in a phone booth—not its precise nature or manner of occurrence. [Citation.]
(Hernandez v. Jensen (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 1056, 1065, internal quotation marks omitted; see also Id., at p. 1064 [duty is a question of law for the courts].)
The Court finds the injury Plaintiff allegedly suffered to be reasonably foreseeable. Getting injured from spilling hot coffee on oneself while carrying it out of the store is reasonably foreseeable. The undisputed facts here show that there is a parking lot near this Starbucks location. (SSF 3, 13.) The undisputed facts also show that Starbucks takes online orders and has a pick-up counter inside this store location for those orders. (SSF 5-6.) The undisputed facts also show that Starbucks was aware of the chance of hot coffee spilling on its customers, as evidenced by its use of a cardboard sleeve and green stopper inserted in the cup lid. (See SSF 7.) Plaintiff then contends the lid to the coffee cup slid off because it was not properly secured. (Sevilla Decl., ¶ 4.) Considered altogether, it is reasonably foreseeable that a customer like Plaintiff might get injured from hot coffee while carrying it from inside the store on the way to her car in the nearby parking lot if the lid was not properly secured. (See Hernandez, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 1065.)
Starbucks’ reply indicates that Plaintiff’s deposition testimony only stated that she saw the lid was on top of the coffee, not that it was unsecured. (Reply, 5:24-6:19.) Starbucks contends this cannot be used to create a triable issue of fact since it contradicts Plaintiff’s earlier deposition testimony. (Id., 6:20-7:9.) However, as noted above, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s declaration contradicts her deposition testimony since she said nothing about whether the lid was secured in her deposition. (See Baxter Decl., Ex. B, 29:21-30:2; Sevilla Decl., ¶ 4.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Starbucks has not established the absence of a duty of care owed to Plaintiff. The Court will next consider Starbucks’ argument regarding breach.
Breach
“Breach is the failure to meet the standard of care. [Citation.]” (Coyle v. Historic Mission Inn Corp. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 627, 643.)
Starbucks contends Plaintiff cannot establish a breach since it owed no duty of care for the reasons set forth above. Given that the Court found Starbucks failed to establish the absence of a duty of care, the Court finds this argument unavailing.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Starbucks has failed to establish the absence of a triable issue of material fact regarding the issue of breach. The Court will next consider Starbucks’ argument regarding causation.
Causation (Proximate Cause)
“Proximate cause is legal cause, as distinguished from the laymen's notion of actual cause, and is always, in the first instance, a question of law. Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produced the injury [or damage complained of] and without which such result would not have occurred.” (Walt Rankin & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Murrieta (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 605, 626, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) It becomes a question of fact when conflicting inferences or conclusions can be drawn from the evidence within the area of proximate cause as legally defined. (See Shih, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 1071 [proximate cause is a question of fact unless the only reasonable conclusion is an absence of causation, in which case it becomes a question of law].)
Starbucks contends the coffee cup was given to Plaintiff with a secured lid and without spilling by placing it on a counter for Plaintiff to pick up herself. Starbucks contends Plaintiff observed that the lid was on the coffee cup, that it had a cardboard sleeve and green stopper when she picked it up, and that the coffee cup was in Plaintiff’s sole possession at the time she left the store and walked toward her car. Starbucks contends that Plaintiff’s hands were full carrying the coffee in one hand and a cup of cream and car keys in the other, and that Plaintiff has no evidence that Starbucks failed to properly secure the lid on the coffee cup or that it was heated to an unsafe temperature. Starbucks also contends that Plaintiff will not be able to present competent evidence since she did not observe any problems with the cup or lid and no testing was ever performed on the cup or lid. Starbucks then contends it was not until Plaintiff had walked more than halfway across the parking lot that the lid allegedly came loose from the cup. In sum, Starbucks contends the coffee spilling is too attenuated to impose liability.
Starbucks further cites to the case of Shih, cited above, as a case purportedly involving similar facts in which summary judgment was affirmed on appeal in favor of Starbucks on the grounds that the alleged defects in the cup and Starbucks’ alleged negligence were not the proximate cause of the customer’s injuries. Starbucks contends that its alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries here because they are too attenuated from each other. Starbucks contends Plaintiff’s hands were full, and that she managed to walk through the store and most of the parking lot before she was injured. Starbucks contends that she was in sole possession of the coffee cup the entire time and that she admits the lid was on when she took possession of the cup.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Starbucks’ own policies requires its employees to secure lids to beverages for safety to prevent hot liquids from spilling out of cups, and that customers rely on Starbucks to properly train its employees to secure lids to the top of cups holding hot beverages. Plaintiff contends Starbucks providing excessively hot coffee was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. Plaintiff argues that Shih is factually distinguishable from this case, as Shih involved a customer who picked up two cups of extremely hot tea, carried the cups and placed them on a table, the customer sat in a chair at the table, removed the lid on her drink, bent forward to sip from the open cup, accidentally pushed her chair out farther than intended, and grabbed onto the table to maintain her balance, which led to spilling the hot drink on the customer.
The Court finds Starbucks has failed to meet its burden of negating an essential element, namely proximate cause. First, it is foreseeable that a failure to secure the lid on a hot cup of coffee could result in the coffee spilling on the person and the person being burned. Such an event is within the scope of risk. Second, the Court notes that Plaintiff disputed Starbucks’ proffered evidence regarding whether the lid was properly secured to the cup before Plaintiff picked it up. (See SSF 9; Sevilla Decl., ¶ 4.) Further, Plaintiff did not testify during her deposition that the lid was secured or not loose. Plaintiff testified that there was a lid on top of the cup. In response to the following compound question: “And did that lid – did it appear to be secure on there? Was it- was it loose or did you notice anything about it?”, Plaintiff responded: “I didn’t – no, I did not. It just seemed to be on top.” (Plaintiff Depo Transcript (Exh. B) at 29:23-25 and 30:1-2.) Thus, Starbucks has not presented any undisputed evidence that the lid was secured on the cup. Third, the fact that the lid slid off while Plaintiff was walking is evidence that something went wrong. (See SSF 14; see also Dore, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 389 [evidence construed in light most favorable to non-moving party].) The problem here is that it is unclear what caused the lid to slide off. It could have been caused by Starbucks’ employee failing to properly secure it, a defect in the lid itself, or something Plaintiff did while walking to the car. Starbucks has not presented evidence showing that there is only one explanation as to what caused the lid to slide off when it did, which makes this a question of fact for the jury. (See Shih, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 1071.)
Finally, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Shih is factually distinguishable from this case. The Court of Appeal in Shih affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause because the alleged defects in the cups and Starbucks’ alleged negligence were not what caused the customer’s injuries. (Shih, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 1071.) The customer’s injuries were caused by her losing her balance and hitting the table on which the hot tea was placed in an effort to avoid falling. (Id., at p. 1070.) The customer was also the one that had removed the lid in that case. (Id.) It was the customer’s own clumsiness that caused her injuries in Shih. Here, there is no evidence conclusively showing one way or the other what caused Plaintiff’s injuries. The undisputed evidence only shows that the lid came off while Plaintiff was walking to her car. (SSF 14.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff tripped or fell or that someone else did something to cause it to come off. At most, Starbucks proffered the fact that Plaintiff’s hands were full when she was walking back to her car, but there is no evidence connecting this to the lid sliding off the cup and injuring Plaintiff. (See SSF 12-13.)
Additionally, for the reasons set forth above under the issue of duty, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s actions too attenuated from Starbucks’ alleged conduct here.
Accordingly, the Court finds a triable issue of material fact exists at to the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and Defendant Starbucks is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.