Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV33965, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33965    Hearing Date: May 21, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, filed by Defendant Chung Lin Chang, LLP dba Downey Inn Luxury Suites.

TENTATIVE

The Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Chung Lin Chang, LLP dba Downey Inn Luxury Suites., is CONTINUED.

Background

On September 15, 2021, Honesty Stanfield (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Downey Inn Luxury Suites and Chung Lin Chang for general negligence and premises liability causes of action. Plaintiff alleges she slip and fell while staying at the hotel on July 11, 2020. (Complaint, GN-1; Prem.L-1.)

On February 28, 2022, Chung Lin Chang, LLP dba Downey Inn Luxury Suites filed an answer and cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 25 for equitable/implied immunity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory relief.

On June 6, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendant filed a reply on May 16, 2024.

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.)

Discussion

Defendant filed a Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on June 6, 2023. Within this notice, Defendant states copies of the following exhibits were lodged with the Court:

-          Exhibit A, copies of pages 63, 68, 69, 70, 73, and 74 of Plaintiff’s deposition.

-          Exhibit B, a copy of a video produced by Plaintiff in response to Defendant’s requests for production purporting to depict the interior of Room 207 during the subject incident.

-          Exhibit C, a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint.

-          Exhibit D, a copy of Defendant’s Special Interrogatory No. 1 to Plaintiff and her response thereto.

-          Exhibit E, copies of Defendant’s Requests for Admissions No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and Plaintiff’s responses thereto.

-          Exhibit F, copies of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two to Plaintiff and her response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admissions No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

Lodging exhibits is not the same as filing exhibits. Exhibits and other evidence offered in support of a motion must be filed and placed into the Court’s file. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1302.)

These exhibits need to be filed with the Court.

Therefore, the Court CONTINUES the motion for summary judgment to allow Defendant to file the lodged exhibits.

Conclusion

The Court CONTINUES the motion for summary judgment to allow Defendant to file the lodged exhibits.

Moving Party is to give notice.