Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV45984, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV45984 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative Summary Adjudication filed
by Defendant SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. dba Eternal Valley Memorial
Park & Mortuary.
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
This action
arises out of vehicle accident that occurred on December 15, 2018, within a
cemetery in Newhall, California.
On December
2, 2020, Plaintiffs Jay Mitsuru Takaki and Rosa I. Takaki (“Plaintiffs”) filed the
Complaint in this action against Defendants Jimmie Wayne Phillips (“Jimmie Phillips”),
SCI California Funeral Services Inc. dba Eternal Valley Memorial Park & Mortuary
(“SCI”), and Does 1 through 25. Plaintiffs
allege, in sum, that a truck driven by Defendant Jimmie Phillips and hauling a
heavily loaded trailer stalled, rolled back down a hill in the cemetery owned
and operated by SCI, and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiffs
assert causes of action for motor vehicle negligence (against Phillips and Does
1 through 25), general negligence (against SCI and Does 1 through 25), and
premises liability (against SCI and Does 1 through 25).
Jimmie Phillips
filed an Answer to the Complaint on February 26, 2021. SCI filed an Answer to the Complaint on March
5, 2021.
On May 6,
2022, Plaintiffs named Lion Logistics, Inc. as Doe 1, Expedited Carriers as Doe
2, and Bruce Phillips as Doe 3.
On June 17,
2022, Lion Logistics, Inc. was dismissed.
On October
13, 2022, Bruce Phillips filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On January
30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint denominated the “Fifth Amended
Complaint” (“FAC”) adding additional factual allegations regarding the accident.
On May 26,
2023, the Court denied SCI’s motion for summary judgment as moot. As the Court explained, the motion had been
directed to the allegations in the Complaint, but the Complaint was superseded
by the filing of the FAC.
On June
13, 2023, SCI filed a new motion for summary judgment, along with supporting
evidence and a request for judicial notice.
On December 1, Plaintiffs filed their opposition, along with supporting
evidence and their own request for judicial notice. On December 21, SCI filed its reply.
The motion
was scheduled for hearing on December 29.
The Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to February 16,
2024.
Also, on
December 29, Defendants Jimmie and Bruce Phillips filed an (untimely) opposition
to SCI’s motion. SCI filed a reply to
that opposition on February 8.
Legal Standard
“The purpose
of the law of summary judgment 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.) “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
cause of action as framed by the complaint, a defendant moving for summary
judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by
presenting facts to show “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, subd. (p)(2); see also Aguilar, supra,
25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851; Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 437c, subd. (p)(2); see also Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp.
850-851.)
A plaintiff or
cross-complainant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must
satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to show “that there is
no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the
cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has
met that burden, the burden shift to the defendant or cross-defendant 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 party
opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not simply
“rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings” but must instead “set
forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (p)(1) & (p)(2). 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.)
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.)
Judicial Notice
SCI requests
that the Court take judicial notice of eleven documents from the file in this
action. That request, which is
unopposed, is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs
request that the Court take judicial notice of one document from the file in
this action. That request, which is
unopposed, is GRANTED.
Evidentiary Objections
No party filed
any evidentiary objections.
Discussion
In the FAC, Plaintiffs assert two causes of action
against SCI, for general negligence and premises liability. The basic elements of the causes of action for
negligence and premises liability are the same: (1) the existence of a legal duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation;
and (4) resulting damages. (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11
Cal.5th 204, 213; Kesner v. Superior
Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132,
1158; Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) SCI moves for summary judgment, or in the
alternative for summary adjudication, arguing that under each cause of action,
Plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, establish the existence of a legal duty
or breach of that duty.
According to the facts in
the record at this time, non-party Star Granite contracted with dismissed
defendant Lion Logistics to broker delivery of granite to Eternal Velley
Memorial Park in Newhall, California, where the accident ultimately
occurred. (Defendant’s Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts [“DSUMF”], No. 1.)
Defendants Jimmie and Bruce Phillips hauled the granite from Georgia to
the cemetery. (DSUMF, Nos. 3, 14-15,
17-19.)
At the time of the
accident, Jimmie Phillips, a properly licensed and very experienced driver, was
driving the truck. (DSUMF, Nos. 4-7, 9.) When they arrived at the cemetery, Bruce
called to ask where to deliver the granite; an SCI employee came in a golf cart
and motioned for them to follow. (DSUMF,
No. 21.)
As they went up a hill,
Jimmie Phillips “didn’t feel good” with the load and was “a little nervous.” (Selame Decl., Exh. M [“JWP Depo.”], at 34:9-35:4.)
Jose Morales, an SCI employee
and at the time superintendent at Eternal Valley, testified that he approached
the truck and told the two people inside that there was “too much weight” in
the truck and that it was “not going to make it” up the hill. (DSUMF No. 33; Selame Decl., Exh. P [“Morales
Depo.”], at 20:24-21:12.) Morales
observed that the truck “was lifted from front with all the weight in
back. It kind of raised the suspension
of the vehicle or the truck just from him being stopped. So once he started driving, the truck would
lift even more from the front. I mean,
still had enough grip to kind of turn the tires a little bit, but not enough
grip to really, you know, pull up all that weight.” (DSUMF, No. 29; Morales Depo. at 23:18-24:6.)
Morales testified that after
he expressed his concerns to the two people in the truck, the driver (Jimmie
Phillips) responded, “I have 25 years of experience. I know what I am doing.” (DSUMF No. 34; Morales Depo., at
20:24-21:12.) Morales responded, “Okay.” (Morales Depo., at 22:20-25.)
As the truck moved up the
hill, Morales heard the engine making loud noises, “like if it was running at
full force but moving very slow.” (DSUMF,
No. 31; Morales Depo. at 24:7-15.) Then “the
engine was revved high but [the truck] wasn’t moving anymore. All of a sudden, the weight from the trailer
just starting pulling the [truck] backwards and it just overpowered the truck
and it just started pulling it down.”
(Morales Depo. at 25:21-26:5.) At
that point, “you couldn’t hear the engine anymore.” (Morales Depo. at 26:10-19.) As Jimmie Phillips testified, “The engine cut
off in the truck and started rolling backwards.” (JWP Depo. at 31:9-23.)
The truck stalled, the
truck and the trailer rolled backward, collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and
caused injury to Plaintiffs. (DSUMF, No.
38; Plaintiffs’ Statement of Additional Material Facts, No. 15.)
Duty and Breach
The existence and scope of duty are generally legal
questions for the court.¿¿(Brown, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 213; Annocki¿v.
Peterson Enterprises, LLC¿(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 36.)¿
The general rule governing duty
is set forth in Civil Code section 1714: “Everyone is responsible, not only for
the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to
another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his
or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by
want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” (Civ. Code,
§ 1714, subd. (a).) This establishes what the California Supreme Court has
described as the “default rule” that every person has a legal duty “to
exercise, in his or her activities, reasonable care for the safety of others.”
(Brown, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 214.)
Here, SCI owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs. SCI operates a cemetery. As a business and property owner, SCI is subject to the general
rule is that those who own, possess, or control property have a duty to
exercise ordinary care in managing the property¿to¿avoid exposing others to an
unreasonable risk of harm and to keep the premises reasonably safe.¿(Ortega v.
Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1200, 1205, 1209; Annocki, supra, 232
Cal.App.4th at p. 37.)¿If a dangerous condition exists, the property owner is
“under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition¿reasonably
safe …. or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm.”¿¿(Bridgman
v. Safeway Stores, Inc.¿(1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446; see also, e.g., Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 672-73.)¿
Moreover, on these facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that SCI
breached this duty of care. Mr. Morales,
an SCI employee and superintendent of the cemetery, was present at the time of
the accident and saw that the truck driven by Jimmie Phillips was straining
under the weight in the trailer. (DSUMF Nos. 29, 31, 33; Morales Depo., at 20:24-21:12,
23:18-24:15.) Mr. Morales thought that
the truck was “not going to make it.”
(Morales Depo., at 20:24-21:12.) Under
these circumstances, a jury could reasonably conclude that he had a duty to
intervene and order the driver to stop with the delivery until it could be
accomplished in a safe manner.
Instead, Mr. Morales let
the driver proceed. When Jimmie Phillips
told him, “I know what I am doing,” Morales responded, “Okay.” (DSUMF No. 34; Morales Depo., at 20:24-21:12,
22:20-25.) That, a jury could reasonably
conclude, was a breach of the duty of care owed to Plaintiffs and other invitees
in the cemetery that day.
On this record, the Court concludes that SCI has failed to meet its initial
burden of establishing that Plaintiffs cannot establish one or more
elements of the causes of action for negligence and premises liability. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Accordingly, SCI’s motion for summary
judgment, or in the alternative for summary adjudication, is denied.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES SCI’s motion for summary judgment, or in
the alternative for summary adjudication.
Plaintiffs
are ordered to give notice.