Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV43538 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV43538, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43538 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Crown Building Maintenance Co. dba Able Building Maintenance’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

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.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. ) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

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

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.)¿¿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.)¿¿If a dangerous condition exists, the property owner is “under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition¿reasonably safe for their¿[customers’]¿use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm.”¿¿(Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc.¿(1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446.)¿

“A plaintiff alleging injuries based on a dangerous condition must prove the defendant¿either: (1) created the dangerous condition, or (2)¿knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.”¿ (See¿Peralta v. Vons Companies, Inc.¿(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1036; see also¿Ortega v. Kmart Corp.¿(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)¿¿

Here, plaintiff slipped and fell at approximately 12:30 p.m. on August 13, 2020. (Le Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1- Compl. ¶¶ 8, 17; UMF No. 12.) Defendant Able argues that Plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability causes of action against janitorial contractor Able should be dismissed as Able did not have a legal duty to Plaintiff related to her alleged fall. Able presents evidence that its janitorial contract with the property owner, Defendant Equitable Plaza limits Able’s duty to clean the bathrooms in the Property during nighttime only. (UMF Nos. 1-4.) The Property’s bathrooms are cleaned during the day commencing 8:00 a.m. by day porters, who are not employees of Able. (UMF Nos. 5, 6.) These day porters clean the bathrooms 2-3 times per day and mop any spills on the floor. (UMF No. 5.) On date of the incident, the day porter assigned to the bathroom where Plaintiff allegedly fell checked the same bathroom at least once before Plaintiff’s visit. (UMF Nos. 5, 10.) There can be no duty to maintain property, and hence no liability for its negligent maintenance, where there is no ownership or right of control or management of the property. (Copfer v. Golden (1955)135 Cal.App.2d 623, 633-634.)

The Court finds that Defendant has met its burden on summary judgment to show that no triable issue of material facts exists as to whether Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care as it has contracted with the property owned to provide cleaning services at night only, and Plaintiff fell during the day. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to present triable issues of fact as to Defendant Able’s duty.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and has thus failed to produce evidence to meet her burden on summary judgment to show that triable issues of material fact exist as to Defendant’s duty. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant Crown Building Maintenance Co. dba Able Building Maintenance’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.