Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV16287 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV16287, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16287 Hearing Date: April 21, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Siapin Horticulture’s Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary 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.)

“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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “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.)

“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, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., §437c(c).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for summary judgment, on the ground that it did not own, possess, or control the location where Plaintiff fell.

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.) The general rule is that, absent a statute indicating otherwise, a defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it [does] not own, possess, or control. (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 244, 255.)

Defendant argues that it did not own, possess or control the property where the subject incident occurred. The evidence establishes that Defendant had contracted to provide landscaping services at the subject property. (Undisputed Material Fact (UMF) Nos. 10-12.) The Contract explicitly states that the service does not include cleaning garages, parking areas and driveways. (UMF No. 13.) On the date of the incident, Plaintiff had been walking on the parking stall area near the Labor and Delivery Entrance. (UMF 7.) Defendant did not have a duty to maintain the parking area where Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell. (UMF No. 10-13.) In fact, Defendant was last at the property performing its landscape Scope of Work two days before the incident, December 24, 2019. (UMF No. 14.)

The Court finds that Defendant has presented evidence to show that there are no triable issues of material facts as to whether Defendant owned, maintained, or controlled the area Plaintiff fell. As such, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to present triable issues of material fact. However, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and has therefore failed to meet her burden. The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.

Conclusion

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

Moving party is ordered to give notice.