Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 21STCV19453, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV19453, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19453 Hearing Date: October 10, 2023 Dept: 47

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a wrongful death action that was filed on May 24, 2021. Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of their father, who was a resident at a facility for seniors and individuals with disabilities owned and operated by Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, while operating the facility as an assisted living facility, failed to adequately maintain the premises—specifically an intercom device in the decedent’s residence—causing the decedent’s death when he suffered a medical emergency and could not call for assistance. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants failed to adequately monitor the decedent.

Defendants move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of all causes of action.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants move for summary judgment. As the Court has granted summary adjudication of both causes of action for the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Motion for Summary Adjudication

Defendants move in the alternative for summary adjudication of all causes of action.

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination about whether an opposing party can offer evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and, if not, to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(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, 381-82.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) 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.) The lack of opposition by a plaintiff is not grounds to grant a motion for summary judgment if a defendant cannot meet their initial burden of proof. (See Thatcher v. Lucy Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1087.)

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 that cause of action or a defense thereto. 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.)

First Cause of Action: Wrongful Death

Defendants move for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for wrongful death.

To prevail on a claim for wrongful death, a plaintiff must establish “(1) a ‘wrongful act or neglect’ on the part of one or more persons [(that is, negligence)] that (2) ‘causes(s) (3) the ‘death of [another] person.’” (Musgrove v. Silver (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 694, 705, citing Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 390.) To prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) a duty of the defendant to use due care, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) that the breach was the cause of the resulting injury. (See, e.g., Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917-18.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on this cause of action because Defendants had no duty of care for the decedent, such that nothing they did constituted a wrongful or neglectful act, and because Defendants’ conduct was not the cause of the decedent’s death.

1. Wrongful Act/Duty of Care

The crux of Defendants’ contention is that the FAME Arms facility at which the decedent resided was an independent living facility, not an assisted living facility, and therefore did not provide any nursing or caregiving services to its tenants. (See Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact No. 4.) Defendants provide copious evidence in support of this position, including discovery responses provided to Plaintiffs and deposition testimony from its staff. (Id.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ contention that the facility was an assisted living facility was based on a misapprehension by Plaintiff Dion Finister, who stated in his deposition that his understanding was based on his father’s low-income status and physical limitations, not any material or statements given by the facility. (SSUMF No. 12.) In that same deposition, Plaintiff Dion also admitted that the facility did not provide any caregiving services and that the decedent carried out the tasks of daily living himself. (SSUMF No. 4, Defendant’s Exh. E pp. 102:22-106:18.) Defendants have therefore demonstrated that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on this cause of action because no duty of care was owed to the decedent. The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to demonstrate a triable issue of fact in this respect.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants owed the decedent a duty to maintain a functioning intercom because ensuring a functioning intercom was part of a duty to maintain common areas. “When a portion of the premises is reserved by the landlord for use in common by himself and his tenants, or by different tenants, a duty is imposed on the property owner to use ordinary care to keep that particular portion of the premises in a safe condition.” (Harris v. Joffe (1946) 28 Cal.2d 418, 423.) Plaintiffs contend that the intercom constituted a “common area” because the intercom, located in the decedent’s apartment, permitted communication with visitors and could unlock the main door to the apartment building to allow guests to enter. (See SSUMF No. 7; Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Material Fact No. 7.) The Court is not persuaded.

Plaintiffs cite no authority for the position that an electronic device contained in a rented apartment which allows guests to enter the building in which the apartment is located constitutes “a portion of the premises . . . reserved by the landlord for use in common.” Such an interpretation would be an extremely strained reading of the term “common area,” which ordinarily implies a space or a zone for common use and the contents therein, such as a stairway (see, e.g., Beeston v. Lampasona (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 519, 520-22) or a porch contiguous with the primary structure serving as the main point of access to a unit. (Burks v. Blackman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 715, 718-19.) Further, although Plaintiffs heavily emphasize the refusal of Defendants’ staff to conduct a welfare check on the decedent, Plaintiffs do not even attempt to show that Defendants had a duty to provide welfare checks, merely assuming that their failure to do so constituted a breach of a duty of care. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a triable issue of fact with respect to the question of whether the Defendants owed the decedent a special duty of care whose breach would constitute a wrongful act supporting this cause of action.

Defendants are therefore entitled to summary adjudication of this cause of action on the basis that Plaintiffs cannot establish the breach of any legal duty owed to the decedent.

2. Causation

As Defendants have demonstrated that they are entitled to summary adjudication on the basis that Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants owed the decedent any legal duty that was breached, the Court declines to address the issue of causation except to observe that the intercom system, even if fully functional, would not have connected the decedent with any family member or medical professional unless they were already at the door seeking entry. That a broken intercom caused the death is simply not plausible.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the first cause of action for wrongful death is GRANTED.

Second Cause of Action: Negligence

Defendants move for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for negligence.

The parties agree that the second cause of action for negligence is intertwined with the first cause of action for wrongful death, as it is Defendants’ purported negligence which is alleged to be the basis for the wrongful death claim. As the Court has found that Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication of the first cause of action, Defendants are likewise entitled to summary adjudication of the second cause of action.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the second cause of action for negligence is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.