Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00021323-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 14, 2023

08/18/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00021323-CU-PO-CTL DANIEL VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 05/31/2023

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment Daniel v. City of SD, Case No. 2022-21323 August 18, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

Plaintiff, age 67, alleges she was walking her dog around noon on a public sidewalk in the Gaslamp on June 13, 2020 in front of the now shuttered Coyote Ugly Saloon when she 'stepped onto a metal utility cover.' In the Judicial Council form complaint filed in June of 2022, she further alleges 'the rusted and dilapidated frame that was supposed to hold the cover securely in place failed to support the weight and force of stepping down upon the metal cover, causing the cover to dislodge and collapse, and further causing her [to] fall. She alleges injury as a result.

The named defendants are: City of San Diego: Answered 7/12/22; alleged to be liable for a dangerous condition on public property.

CUS San Diego LLC (CUS): Answered 8/22/22; alleged to be the operator of the tavern.

Mercantile Property LLC: Answered 10/31/22; alleged to be the owner/landlord of the subject property.

Presently, defendant CUS seeks summary judgment on the grounds that it was merely the tenant, not the landlord, and thus had no duty to maintain the adjoining sidewalk. ROA 37-41. Plaintiff filed a notice indicating she did not intend to file an opposition. ROA 46.

The case is set for trial in October of 2023. ROA 23-27.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A three-step analysis is employed in ruling on motions for summary judgment. Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373. First, the court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Internat. Drilling Co. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 608, 617. Second, the court determines Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2966485 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DANIEL VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00021323-CU-PO-CTL whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor. Id. Third, if the moving party has carried its initial burden, the court decides whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. Id. at 618. To satisfy this burden, the opposing party must present admissible evidence and may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleading. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849. Summary judgment may only be granted when a moving party establishes the right to the entry of judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).

B. The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998. 'One who owns, possesses or controls land has a duty to act reasonably to protect others from a dangerous condition on the property.' Soto v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 168, 177.

3. Discussion and Ruling.

The unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted.

'A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control.' Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134. 'Where the absence of ownership, possession, or control has been unequivocally established, summary judgment is proper.' Id. In this case, CUS has submitted evidence showing that it ceased business operations and terminated its lease of the premises before plaintiff's accident. (Wiseman Decl., ¶¶ 6-8; Ex. B.) With this evidence, CUS has met its initial burden of showing that it did not own, possess, or control the subject sidewalk at the time of the accident. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1).

The burden shifts to plaintiff to establish a triable issue of material fact. Id. As noted above, plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and thus has failed to meet her burden of showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).

This ruling is dispositive as to CUS. Counsel for CUS is directed to submit a judgment of dismissal for the court's signature.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2966485