Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC660220, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC660220    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   May 24, 2023                                     

CASE NAME:           Pamela Monk v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO.:                BC660220

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants City of Los Angeles, Matthew Diller, Amar Pal, Brad Gorby, Shawn Murphy, and Matthew McNulty

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Pamela Monk

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Summary Judgment, or the alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff Pamela Monk (“Plaintiff”) filed an initial Complaint in pro per against Defendants City of Los Angeles, et al. (“Defendants”). The complaint was based on injuries Plaintiff sustained from an alleged false arrest and imprisonment by Los Angeles Police Department officers. 

On June 16, 2017, the case was removed to federal court. 

On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and on April 26, 2018, the federal court remanded this matter to state court. 

On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. 

On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, which was GRANTED.

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On September 15, 2020, Defendants City of Los Angeles, Matthew Diller, Amar Pal, Brad Gorby, Shawn Murphy, and Matthew McNulty filed an Answer.

On August 9, 2022, Defendants City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, Matthew Diller, Amar Pal, Brad Gorby, Shawn Murphy, and Matthew McNulty filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On February 24, 2023, Defendants City of Los Angeles Matthew Diller, Amar Pal, Brad Gorby, Shawn Murphy, and Matthew McNulty filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed on May 5, 2023. Defendants’ Reply was filed on May 10, 2023.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The court rules on Defendants’ evidentiary objections as follows:

The court sustains Objections Nos. 3, 5, 9

The court overrules Objections Nos. 1-2, 4, 6-8

LEGAL STANDARD:

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant or cross-defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown 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).)  “Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant 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).)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”  (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)  “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Id. at p. 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

ANALYSIS:

Defendants move for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action. Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish the cause of action for False Arrest and False Imprisonment. Specifically, Defendant argues that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff because an officer witnessed the physical altercation between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother and knew of the two protective order that both Plaintiff and her mother had.

1.      Probable Cause: Fight in Public

Defendants argue that there was sufficient probable cause to arrest Plaintiff as Officer Gorby witnessed Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother in a fight. However, Defendants have failed to establish probable cause based on the fight in public place, in violation of Penal Code § 415. In People v. Khorn, the Court of Appeal stated, “a location guarded by a fence or locked door is not readily accessible to the public, and is not a public place.” (People v. Krohn (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1298-1299.) Here, Officer Gorby stated in his deposition that he peered over the fence and witnessed Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother involved in a physical altercation. (Sep. Stmt. ¶ 14.) Thus, Defendants have not met their initial burden that they had probable cause based on the testimony of Officer Gorby.    

2.      Probable Cause: Elder Abuse and Protective Order:

Defendants also argue that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff based the violation of the elder abuse protective order or elder abuse pursuant to Penal Code § 368(b)(1). The Court finds that Defendant has met its initial burden of establishing that officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. In Officer Gorby’s testimony, he indicates Plaintiff’s mother told the officers that there was an elder abuse protective order in place. (Sep. Stmt. 11.) Additionally, Officer Gorby witnessed Plaintiff and her 76-year-old mother in a physical altercation, which is a violation of Penal Code § 368(b)(1).[1] (Sep. Stmt. 15.) Therefore, since Defendants have met their initial burden, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to a triable issue of material fact. Here, Plaintiff’s testimony is unequivocal that she did not any force or violence on her mother. Plaintiff testified that that she never struck, touched, pushed, punched, or scratched her mother. (Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. 49, Dec. McRae, Exhibit A, pg. 203: 24-25.) Thus, based on the facts presented by Plaintiff, she has satisfied the burden of production to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.

Therefore, Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

            Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             May 24, 2023              __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court