Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2023-00006714-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2023-00006714-CU-PO-NC GONZALEZ VS. BEDFORD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 02/01/2024

There are two Motions for Summary Judgment presently on-calendar in this matter, one brought by defendant Jacob Bedford and the other brought by defendant Michael Bedford. The ruling on each is provided under separate headings below.

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (as to Jacob Bedford) The Motion for Summary Judgment brought by defendant Jacob Bedford is DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice The Request for Judicial Notice brought by defendant Jacob Bedford is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 451, et seq.

Factual Background This is a dog bite case. The dog bite in question arose out of an altercation of sorts between sets of dogs that are owned by people living as next-door neighbors. Incidentally, both of the adjacent properties are owned by defendant Michael Bedford. One of the properties in question is located at 2240 Buena Creek Road in Vista, California and is occupied by Albert and Kelly Gonzalez (hereinafter, the Gonzalez Property). The other property in question is located at 2232 Buena Creek Road in Vista, California and is occupied by defendant Jacob Bedford (hereinafter, Jacob's Property).

Albert and Kelly Gonzalez (respectively, Albert and Kelly) own two dogs – a Husky and a German Shephard. Albert's uncle is plaintiff John Gonzalez (Plaintiff or Uncle John). According to the facts provided, Uncle John was visiting his nephew, Albert, on the day that the dog bite occurred.

Separately, defendant Jacob Bedford (Jacob), who lives next door to Albert and Kelly, owns two dogs – both are Pit Bulls.

As described in the briefing, Albert, Kelly, and Uncle John were lounging in the driveway and heard agitated barking coming from the backyard of the Gonzalez Property. After running to the backyard to see what was happening, they saw Jacob's pit bulls hitting the chain link fence that separates the properties (though this phrase 'separates the properties' is not exact, as will be discussed in more detail below) and trying to jump over it. Albert and Kelly's dogs were essentially 'facing off' against Jacob's dogs, but the chain link fence between the properties remained intact. According to the briefing, Uncle John – who is the plaintiff in this action – was worried that one of Albert and Kelly's dogs would stick their snout through the chain link fence and get bitten by a pit bull. So, Plaintiff first tried to grab both of Albert and Kelly's dogs, but was unsuccessful. After failing at that effort, Plaintiff instead reached over Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090918 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GONZALEZ VS. BEDFORD [IMAGED]  37-2023-00006714-CU-PO-NC the chain link fence and began punching one of the pit bulls in the head and mouth. As a result of this effort, Plaintiff suffered dog bites as well as scraping of his underarm due to his position of having to reach over the chain link fence to access the pit bulls. At some point, Kelly was able to get control of both of hers and Albert's dogs.

Somewhat confusingly, the facts provided indicate that it is 'undisputed' that 'Albert and Kelly were able to corral the subject pit bulls without incident and return them to defendant Jacob Bedford's house next door.' (ROA 72, ¶ 21.) The reason this is somewhat confusing is because it is also undisputed that: '[Albert and Kelly's] dogs... were on plaintiff's side of the fence [which the Court presumes means Albert and Kelly's side since Plaintiff was visiting Albert and Kelly at the time of the incident and is a relation of Albert's] and the two pit bulls were on the opposite side of the chain link fence.' (ROA 72, ¶ 10.) It does not seem to necessarily make sense that the pit bulls needed to be 'returned' to Jacob's Property if they were already 'on the opposite side of the chain link fence.' In an effort to make sense of this factual inconsistency, the Court notes a line in the reply brief of the accompanying motion (as to Michael Bedford) in which it is noted that: ...the fence plaintiff is referring to is the fence that surrounds Jacob Bedford's rented property. Jacob Bedford's property and [Albert and Kelly's] property did not share a common fence. The subject properties were separated by an empty field. (ROA 76, p. 4:4-7.) While this information provides some insight into why Albert and Kelly may have needed to collect the pit bulls and return them to Jacob's Property, it also begs some other questions. As worded, it is Jacob's house that is surrounded by a chain link fence. However, looking in more detail, it appears that both properties are surrounded by chain link fences. (ROA 76, p. 4:5-9.) In other words, it appears that Jacob's dogs escaped from the fencing that surrounds a portion of Jacob's Property, traveled over an empty field, and then were on the outside of the separate fence that surrounded a portion of the Gonzalez Property when the 'dust up' between the dogs occurred.

Relevant Procedural History Plaintiff filed the instant action in February 2023 alleging causes of action for: (1) general negligence, (2) strict liability, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (4) premises liability. What makes the case a bit interesting in terms of the present motion is that it named several defendants, many of whom are in relation to one another. Specifically, though Jacob has already been discussed as the occupant of the Jacob Property, he was the son of defendant Michael, who owned both properties. In addition, Michael and Jacob are the respective son and grandson of defendants Robert and Terrene Bedford (collectively, the Grandparents). It is not entirely clear why the Grandparents were initially sued in this action other than perhaps some confusion as to the true ownership of Jacob's dogs or as to who was supposed to be watching and responsible for the dogs during the time in question.

At any rate, Plaintiff settled his claims against the Grandparents in September 2023. This fact is interesting in and of itself because it appears to be undisputed that one of the Grandparents, namely the grandfather Robert, passed away in August 2023 before the agreement was fully executed Nonetheless, the parties do not appear to be disputing the validity of the release document on account of the fact that the Grandparents' legal representatives presented a Release for Waiver of Costs on behalf of their clients to Plaintiff and Plaintiff signed it. This Court subsequently approved an Application for Good Faith Settlement (ROA 44), and the Grandparents were dismissed from this lawsuit with prejudice (ROA 45).

The grandson, Jacob, is now arguing that he is covered by the terms of the Release for Waiver of Costs.

Merits of Motion To make this argument, Jacob cites the following language from the Release for Waiver of Costs: FOR THE SOLE CONSIDERATION OF A WAIVER OF COSTS ($0.00), the receipt and sufficiency of that is hereby acknowledge and undersigned hereby releases and forever discharges Defendants Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090918 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GONZALEZ VS. BEDFORD [IMAGED]  37-2023-00006714-CU-PO-NC ROBERT L. BEDFORD and TERRENE BEDFORD and each of their heirs, executors, administrators, agents, principals, employers and assigns, none of whom admit any liability to the undersigned but all expressly deny any liability, from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action or suits of any kind or nature whatsoever, related to al harm or injuries, known or unknown, both to person and property, which have resulted or may in the future develop from an incident that occurred on or about May 30, 2022 at or near San Diego County, California, and is the subject of the lawsuit entitled Gonzalez v Bedford et al, filed in the San Diego Superior Court bearing case number 37-2023-00006714-CU-PO-NC. (Some bold added.) Jacob's argument is that he is an 'heir' of both his grandfather and his grandmother. The Court disagrees as applied in this context. First, 'heirs' cannot necessarily be determined until after someone's passing, so the grandmother, Terrene, does not even necessarily have heirs yet. Second, Jacob is not being sued in his capacity as an 'heir' of his grandfather's estate. Third, and probably most controlling, the Grandparents filed an Application for Good Faith Settlement on October 19, 2023 that specifically included a copy of the Request for Dismissal that was to be filed in this action if the settlement was determined to be in good faith. That proposed Request for Dismissal (ROA 43, Ex. A) ripened into the actual Request for Dismissal (ROA 45), and it specifically checks at box 1b(6) the option specifying that the dismissal was 'as to Defendants, Robert Bedford and Terrene Bedford ONLY...' (ROA 43 (caps in original).) It somewhat boggles the mind why the Grandparents would have sought approval of the good faith nature of their settlement and included a proposed dismissal that only specified that the claims against them would be dismissed if their intent was to have the case dismissed as to their son and grandson as well.

As such, Jacob's theory that the claims against him must be summarily adjudicated because Plaintiff agreed to dismiss them is misplaced.

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (as to Michael Bedford) The Motion for Summary Judgment brought by defendant Michael Bedford is DENIED.

Merits of Motion – Settlement and Release Michael raises the same arguments that Jacob does with regards to his standing as an 'heir' of his parents. Tor the same reasons set forth above as to Jacob, the Court rejects that argument.

Merits of Motion – Assumption of Risk Michael argues that Plaintiff's claims against him are barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. His argument is predicated on the notion that there was a chain link fence between Plaintiff and the pit bulls when the pit bulls were acting aggressively, such that Plaintiff did not need to actually engage them.

Instead, Plaintiff made the conscious and deliberate choice to reach over the fence and begin punching one of the pit bulls, which eventually resulted in his injuries. As argued by Michael, this means that Plaintiff 'assumed the risk' of what would happen if he climbed over the fence to start engaging the pit bulls.

The confusion about the application of this doctrine appears to stem from the fact that there are scenarios in which 'assumption of risk' applies to dogs. One such example is that when a veterinarian goes in to treat a dog, the veterinarian assumes the risk of being bitten by that dog – being bitten is an inherent risk of the activity and the activity is one that public policy protects (i.e. so that animals can have medical treatment). Other examples might exist, however, for competing or participating in a dog show or for participating in the Iditarod (assuming it took place in California). The point, as made by Plaintiff, is that 'assumption of risk' generally applies to recreational activities or occupational hazards, and it exists for the purpose of allowing those occupations and recreational activities to go on. On the contrary, in a litigious environment, the risk of liability in such scenarios would 'chill' the participation either in recreational activities or in necessary hazardous occupations. The instant case lacks those elements. As such, the 'assumption of risk' doctrine does not apply.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090918 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GONZALEZ VS. BEDFORD [IMAGED]  37-2023-00006714-CU-PO-NC Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090918