Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV20196, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20196    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-28-23

Case #21STCV20196 c/w 21STCV22844

TRIAL DATE: 6-24-23 c/f 11-6-23 c/f 4-3-23

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, City of Santa Clarita

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/ Plaintiffs, Chad Perrigo, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 28, 2021, plaintiff Chad Perrigo was involved in a motorcycle-truck collision with defendant Jorge Edmondo Castaneda Rodriguez. Plaintiff alleges Rodriguez was operating his vehicle on behalf of defendants MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, Fernando Escolero, and Fames Transport, Inc. for the United States Postal Service.

On May 28, 2021, the Perrigos filed their complaint for motor vehicle, general negligence, and loss of consortium. On June 21, 2021, the Perrigos filed a first amended complaint (21STCV20196).

On June 18, 2021, County of Los Angeles filed a complaint against Jorge Edmondo Castaneda Rodriguez, MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, Fernando Escolero, and Fames Transport, Inc. dba Nevada Fames Transport, Inc. for motor vehicle (21STCV22844).

On September 8, 2021, the court deemed Perrigo, et al. v. Rodriguez, et al., 21STCV20196 related to 21STCV22844.

On January 20, 2022, the court granted the Perrigos’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On February 7, 2022, the Perrigos filed their second amended complaint for negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, dangerous condition of public property, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs also added the State of California and City of Santa Clarita as defendants.

On March 1, 2022, the court consolidated the actions. On March 10, 2022, the court granted the motion to transfer the consolidated actions. On March 11, 2022, the court transferred the action from Department 32 to Department 47. On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff County of Los Angeles filed peremptory challenge to Department 47. The action was assigned to Department 49 on March 30, 2022.

On April 8, 2022, the City of Santa Clarita filed a cross-complaint against Jorge Edmondo Castaneda Rodriguez, MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, Fernando Escolero, and Fames Transport, Inc. for implied equitable indemnity, contribution/apportionment, and declaratory relief. On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the State of California.

On March 28, 2023, the court granted Plaintiffs unopposed motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to add new defendant Ridge Transport, Inc., as well as new allegations against existing defendants Fames Transport, Inc., MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, and Castaneda. The third amended complaint was filed on March 30, 2023 for negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, dangerous condition of public property, and loss of consortium

RULING: Granted

Defendant City of Santa Clarita moves for summary judgment and alternatively summary adjudication to the fourth and fifth cause of action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property and Loss of Consortium on grounds that the location of collision in no way constitutes a dangerous condition in that the City of Santa Clarita in no way created any dangerous condition, and lacked notice of any such alleged condition. City of Santa Clarita also maintains it is immune from liability. The loss of consortium claim also fails due to the lack of underlying liability. City of Santa Clarita is only named in the fourth and fifth causes of action.

Plaintiffs Chad and Alexa Perrigo submitted a notice of non-opposition to the motion, and stipulate that the City of Santa Clarita “did not create the alleged dangerous condition; (2) the City did not have actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition; and (3) there is no negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the City within the scope of employment that created the alleged dangerous condition.” City of Santa Clarita also filed a notice of non-opposition with an attached copy of Plaintiffs’ notice of non-opposition.

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. Atl. 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 facie 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 “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (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.” (Ibid.) 

The court finds City of Santa Clarita shifts the burden regarding the denial of any creation of a dangerous condition; the City lacked actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition; and no negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the City within the scope of employment created the alleged dangerous condition. [Declaration of Robert Theiring, Compendium of Exhibits, Declaration of Andrew Adams.] (Gov. Code, § 830, 830.4, 830.8, 835, 835.2; Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 408.) Plaintiffs submit no opposition, concede to the merits, and therefore fail to raise any triable issues of material fact. The motion for summary judgment as to the fourth and fifth causes of action is therefore granted.

Trial currently set for June 24, 2024.

City of Santa Clarita to give notice to all parties.