Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC716488, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC716488 Hearing Date: January 11, 2023 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: January
11, 2023
CASE NAME: Marshonda Whitaker v. Abraham Mayer, et al.
CASE NO.: BC716488
DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sunquest Builders, Inc. and
Erich Obst
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff
Marshonda Whitaker
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
order granting summary judgment
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On August 7,
2018, Plaintiff Marshonda Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Abraham Mayer; Afton Properties, Inc.; Afton Holdings, LLC; Afton
Holdings II, LLC; CMIF Fountains LP; Canyon Partners Real Estate LLC; and Does
1 through 30. This action arises out of
a landlord-tenant dispute. Plaintiff
alleges she reported a leak in the ceiling from the roof in the master bedroom,
that the leak was not properly repaired, and that, as a result, there was
extensive moisture and water damage, as well as mold. Plaintiff alleges she and her children moved
out of the premises during the time Plaintiff was unable to occupy the premises
and Defendants were making remediation efforts.
Plaintiff alleges that, despite being unable to occupy the premises, she
remained responsible for the electricity bill in her unit. Plaintiff alleges Defendants placed a notice
on the premises stating she abandoned her unit, despite the fact that the
premises were still not in a habitable or tenantable condition. Plaintiff alleges she did not abandon her
lease, she simply refused to pay rent and return to an uninhabitable unit.
On April 7, 2020,
Plaintiff filed amendments to complaint, substituting in 38300 30th Street
Multi LLC; 38300 30th Street LLC; Palmdale Ralty Holdings LLC; FPI Management,
Inc.; Sunquest Buildings, Inc.; and Pinnacle Property Management for Does 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively.
On June 7, 2022, Defendants Sunquest Builders, Inc., and
Erich Obst filed the current Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s
Opposition was filed on December 28, 2022. No Reply has been filed as of
January 6, 2023.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)
provides that a “party may move for summary judgment in any action or
proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no
defense to the action or proceeding.” The motion shall be granted if there is
no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Subdivision (p)(2) of the same section provides that where
a defendant presents evidence showing one or more elements of a cause of action
cannot be established, then the burden shifts to plaintiff to show the
existence of a triable issue of material fact. (See Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Superior
Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 727, 732.)
The moving party’s burden on
summary judgment “is more properly one of persuasion
rather than proof, since he must persuade the court that there is no
material fact for a reasonable trier of fact to find, and not to prove any such fact to the satisfaction
of the court itself as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
25 Cal.4th 826, 850 fn.11, original italics.)
ANALYSIS:
Defendants move for summary
judgment on the grounds that the First Amended Complaint fails to state triable
issues of material fact.
1.
Fourth
Cause of Action: Negligence
“The
elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and
damages.” (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.)
Defendants
contend that the fourth cause of action fails as there are no triable issues of
material facts. The Defendant 38300 30th Street, LLC, filed a Motion
to Deem Request for Admissions, which was granted on November 4, 2021. Here,
the moving Defendants assert that because these RFAs were deemed admitted, the
Plaintiff fails to carry the burden. Specifically, Defendants argue that
because of these deemed admissions, which indicate that Plaintiff “has no
knowledge of any facts to support her sole cause of action for negligence,
Defendants cannot be found liable.
This
reliance on the RFAs is insufficient to meet the burden required for summary
adjudication. “Although admissions are dispositive in most cases, a trial court
retains discretion to determine their scope and effect.” (Fredericks
v. Filbert Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 272, 277.) “An admission of a fact may be misleading.” (Id.) “In those cases in which the court determines
that an admission may be susceptible of different meanings, the court must use
its discretion to determine the scope and effect of the admission so that it
accurately reflects what facts are admitted in light of other evidence.” (Id.)
A review of
the first paragraph on page 3 of the RFAs shows that 38300 30th
Street. Defendants defined “Defendants” to include “Defendants 38300 30th
Street. LLC; 38300 30th Street Multi, LLC, and Palmdale Realty
Holding, LLC.” (Appendix of Exhibits, Ex. C, pg. 3, ¶ 3.) While this definition
is not under the definitions section of the RFAs, it tends to show that 38300
30th Street Defendants’ references to “Defendants” in their RFAs is
still confined to only themselves as opposed to all defendants in this action.
The court notes that in reviewing evidence presented on summary judgment, the
moving party’s evidence is strictly construed. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1990) 75 Cal.App.4th 832,
838-839). In light of the definition on page 3 and the lack of any clear
evidence showing “Defendants” was meant to reference all defendants in this
action, the Court finds that the use of “Defendants” as opposed to “DEFENDANTS”
in the subject RFAs does not extend the admissions to all defendants in this
action. Rather, the use of “Defendants,” even if not capitalized, was meant to
refer to only 38300 30th Street Defendants such that the subject
RFAs only pertain to 38300 30th Street Defendants.
As moving
Defendants have failed to meet its burden, the burden has not shifted to
Plaintiff to demonstrate triable issues of material fact exist as to this cause
of action.
Motion
for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Conclusion:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January
11, 2023 _________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court