Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV13868, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13868    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

Plaintiff Cesar Galarza (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action on April 26, 2022, and the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 3, 2022. In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts a claim for personal injuries against Resource Environmental, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50; according to Plaintiff, on November 5, 2020, while he was performing a safety inspection, he slipped on asbestos dust and debris that had accumulated as a result of the conduct of defendants, fell, and sustained serious injuries.

Defendant filed its answer on September 9, 2022.

On January 3, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel’s to be relieved.  Since then, Plaintiff has been representing himself, in pro per.

On March 17, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted as true the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

On July 7, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment, supporting evidence, and a request for judicial notice. The moving papers were served on Plaintiff by mail, electronic mail, and personal service.

No opposition has been filed.

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.)

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.)

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to take judicial notice of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403.

Discussion

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant performed asbestos removal work in a negligent fashion, allowing asbestos dust and debris to accumulate in the area outside of, but adjacent to, Defendant’s work area. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-11.) Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on “the dangerously slippery asbestos dust and debris that defendants had allowed to accumulate.” (Id., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff’s claim is for negligence. The basic elements of the causes of action for negligence are: (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. Super. Ct. Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158; Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)

During discovery, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted as true the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set One). (Hopkins Decl., Exhs. K-M.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has admitted (among other things) that Defendant was not negligent, that Defendant did not breach any duty to Plaintiff, that Defendant did not cause any injuries to Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was not injured, and that Plaintiff has no evidence that Defendant was negligent. (Hopkins Decl., Exh. K [Requests for Admission], at Nos. 1-4, 15; see also Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [“DSUMF”], Nos. 35-61.)  

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Requests for admission “differ[] fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The purpose of the admissions procedure . . . is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” [Citations.] Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contrary evidence. [Citation.]” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.)

In light of the Requests for Admission, the Deemed-Admitted Order, and all of the other evidence in the record, Defendant has met its initial burden on summary judgment of presenting facts that show that one or more elements of Plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

Once a defendant has made such a showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that there are triable issues of material fact. (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition at all and thus has not done so.

Accordingly, Defendant has shown on this record that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.