Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV00357, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00357, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

The Court GRANTS Defendant PAMA Management, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant PAMA Management, Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is a personal injury action. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff Keyrin Mariza Pocasangre Munoz (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants PAMA Management, Inc. (erroneously sued as PAMA Management, Co.) (PAMA), Group XII Properties LP (Group XII), and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence.

On August 1, 2023, PAMA filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion is unopposed.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or 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.) “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 plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant . . . 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)(1).) “[A] plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).)”

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) 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.)

The Court notes that PAMA’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SSUMF) does not comply with the format prescribed in Rule 3.1350, subdivision (h) of the California Rules of Court. Specifically, PAMA’s supporting evidence is listed in a separate column from the statements of undisputed material facts, and the separate column is supposed to be left blank for the opposing statements. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subd. (h).) Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or complained of this issue. Accordingly, the Court will still consider PAMA’s motion for summary judgment but admonishes PAMA to comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court going forward.

PAMA moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact that PAMA did not own or control the subject property at the time of the incident, PAMA did not create the holes at the subject property that led to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, and the alleged dangerous condition was modified after PAMA stopped managing the subject property. PAMA further contends summary judgment should be granted as to both causes of action on the basis that PAMA had no ongoing relationship or duty with regard to the subject property. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will only analyze the issue regarding PAMA’s alleged ownership or control of the subject property.

“To recover on a negligence theory, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation and damages. [Citations.]“ (Leslie G. v. Perry & Assocs. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 480.) A necessary element of causes of action for both negligence and premises liability is the existence of a legal duty to the plaintiff. (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Prop. Mgmt. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369.) “[T]he duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises. [Citations.]” (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 368.)

PAMA presents the following statements of undisputed material facts in support of PAMA’s contention that it did not own or control the subject property at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries:[1]

2. Defendant only managed the subject property from March 1, 2019 to December 1, 2019. (SSUMF 4.)

3. Since January 1, 2020, the subject property has been managed by Regency Management, Inc. (SSUMF 5.)

4. PAMA has not managed the subject property since Regency Management, Inc. became the property manager on January 1, 2020. (SSUMF 6.)

5. PAMA has had no relationship or role whatsoever with the subject property since December 31, 2019. (SSUMF 7.)

6. PAMA had no landlord-tenant relationship with Plaintiff after December 31, 2019, including on March 18, 2021. (SSUMF 8.)

The Court finds PAMA has presented sufficient evidence to establish the absence of a triable issue of fact regarding the issue of duty, i.e., PAMA not owning or controlling the subject property at the time of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s injuries occurred on March 18, 2021. (Compl., Prem-L1.) PAMA has presented a copy of a property management agreement between itself and Defendant Group XII, the owner of the subject property, which indicates a term of March 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. (Notice of Lodgment, Ex. C; Wilson Decl., ¶ 2.) PAMA has presented a copy of a management agreement between PAMA’s successor, Regency Management Inc., and Group XII, which indicates a term of January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. (Notice of Lodgment, Ex. D.) PAMA has also presented evidence, to which Plaintiff did not object, (see Evid. Code § 437c, subd. (d); Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1045), which states that PAMA managed the subject property only for the period of March 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, and that PAMA did not manage the subject property at any time after Regency Management Inc. became the property manager on January 1, 2020. (Wilson Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7.)

Moreover, the Court also agrees with PAMA that Plaintiff has provided factually devoid discovery responses on the issue of PAMA’s alleged ownership or control of the subject property. (Notice of Lodgment, Ex. F, Request for Admission Response Nos. 1, 2.) This provides an additional basis for shifting the burden to Plaintiff to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.)

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and therefore has failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact on the issue of ownership or control of the subject property. Accordingly, the Court finds there is no triable issue of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant PAMA Management, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant PAMA Management, Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling within five calendar days of this order.

[1] The Court treats Plaintiff’s two causes of action as one and the same, since premises liability is simply a form of negligence, (see Silva v Union Pacific R.R. Co. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1029), and Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same set of facts.