Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV03537, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03537    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 14, 2025                   TRIAL DATE: September 9, 2025

CASE:                         Dennis Watanabe v. Jollibee Foods Corp.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV03537           

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Honeybee Foods Corp. erroneously sued as Jollibee Foods Corp.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Dennis Watanabe

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a negligence and premises liability action that was filed on February 13, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on an “unknown liquid substance” at Defendant’s restaurant and sustained injuries.

Defendant moves for summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves for summary judgment.

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party can show 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.)

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections

            Plaintiff objects to portions of the Declaration of Sheryl Jara in support of the Motion. The Court rules on these objections as follows:

Objection Nos. 1-2: OVERRULED. This testimony is facially relevant, and the declarant has laid a foundation for it and demonstrated her personal knowledge of the information. This testimony is not speculative, conclusory, or an improper opinion, expert or otherwise.

Objection No. 3: OVERRULED. Objections go to weight, not admissibility.

Objection No. 4: SUSTAINED under the Secondary Evidence Rule. (Evidence Code § 1523.)

Objections Nos. 5-6: OVERRULED. Objections go to weight, not admissibility.

Objection No. 7: OVERRULED. The Complaint in this action is within the Court’s own records and necessarily defines the scope of the issues in this action. (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.) The Court therefore can and does take judicial notice of the Complaint on its own motion without requiring a separate request or authentication of the Complaint. (See Evid. Code § 452(d).) Moreover, although the included page citation is erroneous, as discussed below, that error does not render the Complaint inadmissible evidence.

Analysis

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and premises liability lack merit. Both contentions are grounded in Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff was on notice of an open and obvious hazard because of the placement of a wet floor sign. In support of these arguments, Defendant purports to reference a video recording from a security camera. However, Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact only offers two “material facts.” The first fact offered is that that Plaintiff slipped and fell on Honeybee’s property at 3821 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90004 on July 29, 2022, erroneously citing “page 19” of the Complaint rather than the proper citation to page 4, paragraph Prem.L-1 and page 5, paragraph GN-1.  of the Complaint. (SSUMF No. 1.) The second material fact offered states in its entirety that “Plaintiff fell a few feet away from a wet floor sign as he walked towards it.” (SSUMF No. 2.) The latter statement is supported only by a general citation to “Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s Motion” which is the security video. A sweeping assertion followed by a general citation to an entire exhibit is not a material fact supported by a proper citation to evidence as contemplated by the Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1350(d). Courts are entitled to assistance from counsel, and an invitation to search without guidance is no more useful than a litigant's request to a district court at the summary judgment stage to paw through the assembled discovery material. “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in” the record. [Citation]." (Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys. (2002) 309 F.3d 433, 436.)

The deficiencies in the Separate Statement notwithstanding, Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities includes an image, labeled Figure 1, which Defendant states was drawn from the security video footage. (Motion p. 3 Fig. 1.) The image is centered on a wet-floor sign which is oriented edge-on towards the camera. (Id.) A service counter is shown to the left of the sign. (Id.) To the right, an individual—apparently the Plaintiff—appears to be lying on the floor. (Id.) No liquid is visible in the image. (Id.) Nothing in this image establishes the zone which is the target of the wet-floor sign. For example, it is not apparent whether the sign pertains to the area to the right of the sign, where Plaintiff lay, or to the left, near the counter. Nor does the image demonstrate whether the warning applies to the area where the fall occurred or merely directly at the site where the sign was placed. As the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court cannot interpret this image as demonstrating that Plaintiff was on notice of any open and obvious hazard at the place where the injury occurred. Defendant has therefore failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims as a matter of law. The burden therefore does not shift to Plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of fact, and Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.

//

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.