Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 19STCV15141, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 19STCV15141, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV15141 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: 29

The Court will hear from counsel.

Generally, the so-called “Sidewalk Accident Doctrine” provides that abutting property owners have no duty to members of the public in tort law, and are not liable to members of the public, unless the property owner created the defect or exercised dominion or control over the abutting sidewalk. (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 244, 255.)

But where the property owner created or contributed to the dangerous condition, the property owner may be liable. For example, in Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320,1335, there was evidence that defendant planted and maintained vegetation on both sides of a sidewalk, which grew roots which caused the sidewalk to be uplifted and crack, creating or contributing to the dangerous condition.

Plaintiff submits the declaration of Guy Stivers, a registered landscape architect and certified arborist, who states that through his investigation, he found roots from a myrtle hedge leading to the sidewalk less than four feet away from the defect, and a tree planted in the parkway approximately 18 feet north of the defect. (Declaration of Guy Stivers, ¶ 6.) Mr. Stivers opines that defect in the sidewalk was caused by the root from the myrtle hedge growing on Moving Party’s property and not the tree in the parkway. (Id., ¶ 13.)

Defendant objects to this testimony. But if the Court overrules the objections, does Mr. Stivers’s testimony create a triable issue of fact regarding whether the property owner created or contributed to the dangerous condition?