Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Ayuzo v. Nguyen, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Quyen Nguyen’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

Defendant Quyen Nguyen moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Felipe Ayuzo’s complaint.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  For the following reasons, Nguyen’s motion is granted.

A defendant seeking summary judgment bears its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the defendant shows that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that the defendant has a complete defense to the cause of action.  Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-51. 

If a defendant does not meet this initial burden, the plaintiff need not oppose the motion and the motion must be denied.  Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.  If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact.  Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(2); Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 850-51.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges two causes of action against Nguyen (negligence and premises liability) arising out of a dog bite allegedly perpetrated by a dog owned by Nguyen’s tenants.  Plaintiff’s complaint also alleges violation of Civil Code section 3342 against defendant Huynh Ngo, whom plaintiff later identified as defendant Khanh Ngo. 

“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.  In California, a landlord owes a duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by a tenant's vicious dog only when the landlord “has ‘actual knowledge’ of the dog's vicious nature” and the ability to control or prevent the harm.  Yuzon v. Collins (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 149, 152.  A landlord has no duty to inspect his or her property for the purpose of discovering the existence of a tenant's dangerous animal.  Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369-70.

Nguyen met his initial burden as the party moving for summary judgment to negate at least one element of plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability claims, i.e., whether Nguyen had actual knowledge that the tenants kept an allegedly dangerous dog on the property.  In support of his motion, Nguyen submitted a declaration in which he testified that, before the dog allegedly bit plaintiff on February 15, 2020, Nguyen did not know that the dog, or any dogs, resided at the property, he had not met the dog, and he had not received any complaints about any problems with regard to a dog kept by the tenants.  Nguyen Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.  Nguyen further stated he did not own the dog involved in the incident and had never cared for the dog or controlled it.  Id. ¶¶ 8-9.  The burden therefore shifts to plaintiff to produce evidence creating a triable issue concerning Nguyen’s knowledge that the tenants kept allegedly dangerous dogs on the property before the February 15, 2020 incident.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and thus has not met his burden.  Nguyen’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Defendant Quyen Nguyen to give notice.

Order to Show Cause re Dismissal

An Order to Show Cause re Dismissal of defendants Tuc Tri Nguyen, Khanh Ngo, and Thu Ngo is scheduled for October 5, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.    

The court file does not contain proofs of service reflecting service of the summons and complaint on defendants Tuc Tri Nguyen, Khanh Ngo, and Thu Ngo.  Plaintiff is ordered to appear and show cause why these defendants should not be dismissed.  Failure to appear will result in dismissal of the entire action.

Clerk to give notice.