Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV05113, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05113    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 30

TONY A HADLEY vs IN-N-OUT BURGERS

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant's motion for terminating sanctions is denied as moot. Moving party to give notice.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of this Court’s: (1) Plaintiff’s complaint; (2) Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of All Matters Specified in In-N-Out’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiff; (3) this Court’s July 3, 2023 Order Granting In-N-Out’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of All Matters Specified in In-N-Out’s First Set of Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff; (4) the July 10, 2023 Notice of Ruling on In-N-Out’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of All Matters Specified in In-N-Out’s First Set of Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff.

The request is GRANTED under Evidence Code section 452(d).

Legal Standard

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages . . . or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia 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).) A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence. (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.” (Ibid.)¿ The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“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).) The plaintiff may not merely rely on 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.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

Discussion

Defendant moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, arguing that based upon Plaintiff’s deemed admissions, Plaintiff cannot establish (a) that In-N-Out was negligent or (b) that In-N-Out’s negligence caused Plaintiff’s alleged harm.

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) 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 (citing Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205; Civil Code § 1714(a)).) Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)

On September 14, 2022, In-N-Out served via U.S. mail Requests for Admission, Set One, on Plaintiff. (UF 3.) As of January 24, 2023, Plaintiff had failed to serve any responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One. (UF 4.) As such, on January 24, 2023, In-N-Out moved for an Order of the Court Deeming Admitted the Truth of All Matters Specified in In-N-Out’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiff. (UF 5.) On July 3, 2023, the Court granted In-N-Out’s Motion. (UF 8.)

As a result, the following Requests for Admissions were deemed admitted: Request for Admission No. 2: “that IN-N-OUT was not negligent in maintaining its premises at the WESTWOOD IN-N-OUT immediately prior to the INCIDENT.” (UF 9.) Request for Admission No. 3: “that there was no unreasonable risk of harm present in the area where the

INCIDENT occurred at the time the INCIDENT occurred.” (UF 10.) Request for Admission No. 4: “that there was no condition at the WESTWOOD IN-N-OUT that caused [Plaintiff’s] alleged injuries from the INCIDENT.” (UF 11.) Request for Admission No. 7: “that [Plaintiff’s] own actions caused [his] alleged injuries from the INCIDENT.” (UF 12.)

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Requests for admissions “differs fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The 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.” [Citations.] 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 contrary evidence. [Citation.]” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.)

Deemed admissions constitute incontrovertible evidence establishing the facts they admit.¿ (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1522.)¿ As such, Defendant has met its initial burden on summary judgment to show that there are no triable issues of material fact as to whether it was negligent, whether there was a dangerous condition, and whether Defendant’s negligence caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff filed an opposition, but has failed 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).)¿The opposition merely recounts the legal standard for a motion for summary judgment, and the law as it pertains to his causes of action, but fails to provide any argument in response to Defendant’s argument and evidence in this motion. Further, while Plaintiff provides a declaration stating he slipped and fell on liquid on Defendant’s premises, which caused him injuries, the declaration is not signed, and thus not admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff submits his purported medical bills, a photo of the floor at issue, and incident reports, but as his declaration attempting to authenticate these documents is not signed, it is not admissible, and thus, these documents remain unauthenticated. Further, the photo does not show anything. Similarly, nothing in the incident reports show the existence of a dangerous condition on the floor. In any event, even if Plaintiff’s evidence was admissible, 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 contrary evidence. [Citation.]” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.) Thus, summary judgment in favor of Defendant is appropriate.¿