Judge Thomas Falls, Case 19STCV20777 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

This is a negligence case. Plaintiff James Callahan alleges the following against Defendants Chandler Signs, LLC (“Chandler Signs”) and BK Signs, Inc. (“BK”): Plaintiff operates a commercial transportation company wherein he transports commercial signs. On October 24, 2018, Defendant Chandler Signs loaded signs onto Plaintiff’s truck for transportation to Defendant BK. Upon unloading, the commercial signs tumbled out of the truck’s bed and fell onto Plaintiff.

On August 12, 2020, the court granted Chandler Sign’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint Against Envisage Signs.

On July 18, 2022, DEFENDANT ENVISAGE SIGNS, INC. filed its OPPOSITION TO CHANDLER SIGNS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

On August 8, 2022, Chandler Signs filed its Reply to the Envisage’s Opposition.

The law of summary judgment provides courts “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 (Aguilar).) In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts employ a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

A moving defendant bears the initial burden of production 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, at which point the burden shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “The motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).)

The opposing party may not rely on the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but instead must set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 849.) Specifically, “[t]he opposition, where appropriate, shall consist of affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (2).)

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; see also Hinesley, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 294 [The court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and accept all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.”].) In determining whether the papers show that there is a triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the moving papers, except that as to which objections have been made and sustained, and all inferences reasonable deducible from such evidence. (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

As the pleadings frame the issue(s), the court turns to the complaint’s allegations against Defendant Chandler:

Defendant Chandler negligently failed to properly load and secure the commercial signs that were placed on Plaintiff’s truck bed. Defendant failed to properly pack the subject signs with stable bases such that said signs would not later become unstable or shift during transportation and fall during the unloading process.

Based on this allegation, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proving Chandler Signs owed a duty of care to Plaintiff because there was not a special relationship between the parties and the Rowland factors do not support finding Chandler Signs owed a duty of care to Plaintiff;

2. Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proving Chandler Signs breached a duty of care to Plaintiff because the evidence establishes Chandler Signs was not involved in the subject incident whatsoever; and

3. Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proving Chandler Signs was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs injuries because Chandler Signs did not manufacture, package, load, or secure the freight onto Plaintiffs truck, which ultimately lead to his injuries.

As all three grounds are dispositive to the motion, the court elects to only address whether Chandler Signs loaded or secured the signs onto the truck because that goes directly to the allegations in the complaint.

Notably, Defendant Chandler states that contrary to the complaint, “Plaintiff did not travel to a Chandler Signs facility and never entered to or from Chandler’s property. Instead, Plaintiff proceeded to Evisage Signs to pick up the freight.” (Motion pp. 7, 8, citing Gonzalez Decl., ¶¶2, 3.) In fact, deposition testimony revealed that Defendant BK was responsibility to package and load the freight. (Id.)

Indeed, a review of the Statement of Undisputed Facts provides that Envisage Signs’ PMK testified that Chandler Signs was not present during packaging or loading. (UMF No. 10)

Therefore, considering that the basis of Plaintiff’s negligence claim is that Defendant Chandler negligent loaded the signs (or freight) but Chandler’s evidence demonstrates that the freight was not even picked up at Chandler’s facility let alone loaded the freight, the court finds that Defendant Chandler satisfied its evidentiary burden as it could not have caused the harm.

However, Plaintiff does not dispute UMF No. 10, such that it inherently contradicts its own allegation that Defendant Chandler was negligent by the way it loaded the signs. And to the extent that Plaintiff disputes causation, he appears to argue that that the signs were improperly crated in a manner such that it was “more likely than not that the signs became unbalanced on Plaintiff’s flatbed trailer during transport, and when the straps securing the crates to the trailer were loosened upon Plaintiff’s arrival at BK Signs, the unbalanced, unsupported crates fell sideways and, unfortunately, struck Plaintiff Callahan.” (Opp. p. 24.) However, this argument and evidence not only fails because it still does not address Plaintiff’s own allegation but also, it interchanges between Chandler and Envisage as to who bore the duty to use A-frame crating and whose apparent failure to do so caused the harm. (See Opp. pp. 23-24.)

Therefore, as Plaintiff offered no evidence to support its allegation that Chandler negligently loaded the signs, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden.

All in all, neither Plaintiff’s opposition (nor Envisage Signs’ opposition) dispute the key facts that Chandler Signs did not package, load, or secure the subject signs on Plaintiff’s vehicle, which Plaintiff pleads caused his injuries. And the emphasis on the pleadings bares further discussion. As explained by the appellate court in Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486:

The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to frame ‘the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.’ Put differently, the materiality of a disputed fact is measured by the pleadings, which ‘set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved at summary judgment.’ Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate plaintiff's theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings. Furthermore, the papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings.

Effectively, as Plaintiff’s opposition attempts to allege other means as to how Defendant Chandler allegedly caused Plaintiff’s harm (i.e., not by loading the signs), Defendant Chandler is not required to negate elements of causes of action plaintiffs never pleaded.

Based on the foregoing—that both Plaintiff and Envisage Signs fail to dispute the key facts that Chandler Signs did not package, load, or secure the subject signs on Plaintiff’s vehicle (which Plaintiff claims caused his injury), the motion is granted.

[1] Defendant BK’s liability is premised upon its alleged negligence in failing to “ensure that the subject commercial signs were in such a stable condition on the truck bed before the straps were removed, so as to ensure the commercial signs would not fall or cause injury to those around the truck bed.” (Complaint ¶13.)