Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV10015, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV10015, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10015 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 30

DIANE RIOS vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES

TENTATIVE

Defendant LAZ Parking California, LLC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP Section 437c(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 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(p)(2).)

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 that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Discussion

Defendant moves for summary judgment, on the ground that it owed Plaintiff no duty of care because it did not own, operate, manage or control the public street outside its parking facility.

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: duty, breach, causation, and damages.¿¿(Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)¿¿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.)¿¿The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court.¿¿(Id.¿at¿36.)

“A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it [does] not own, possess, or control.¿ Where the absence of ownership, possession, or control has been unequivocally established, summary judgment is proper.”¿¿(Donnell v. California Western School of Law¿(1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 715, 720 [citation omitted].)¿ “Without the ‘crucial element’ of control over the subject premises, no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury on such property can be found.”¿¿(Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc.¿(1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 76, 81 [citation omitted].)¿

Plaintiff alleges that the incident occurred “on the sidewalk adjacent to 1400 Ivar Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90028 (“the subject incident”). (SSUMF No. 2.) Dome Garage, LLC, owns the parking facility located at 1400 Ivar Avenue, Los Angeles, California (“the parking facility”) abutting the sidewalk where the subject incident occurred. (SSUMF No. 3.)

LAZ argues it owed no duty of care to Plaintiff because it did into own, maintain, or control the subject sidewalk adjacent to the parking facility. (SSUMF No. 4.) Further, it was not responsible for identifying and repairing the condition of the sidewalk that Plaintiff claims caused her to fall. (SSUMF Nos. 8-9.) LAZ was contracted to solely manage and operate the parking facility and was not responsible for the condition outside of that facility. (Id.) Rather, at the time of the accident, affiliates of the Cinerama Dome had contacted a separate vendor, ABM, to perform all maintenance and repairs inside and outside of the parking facility. (SSUMF. No. 10.)

In Plaintiff’s complaint and discovery, she included a photograph of the condition of the subject sidewalk, which also showed a tree planter and tree in the sidewalk. (FAC). In discovery, Plaintiff provided evidence showing that the City owned and maintained that tree in the sidewalk in the form of a work service request, designated “self-service” for the tree located at 1400 N. Ivar Avenue. (SSUMF No. 13.)

The Court finds that Defendant has presented evidence sufficient to show that it did not own, possess or control the public street where the incident took place. The burden shifts to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and thus, has not presented evidence to carry her burden to present triable issues of material fact. As a result, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.