Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: EC066608, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff and cross-defendant KCB Towers, Inc. (“KCB”) and Cross-Defendants Jaysco, Inc. (“Jaysco”) and Agustin Arreola Perez d/b/a Mr. Welder (“Mr. Welder”) (collectively referred to as “Cross-Defendants”) move for judgment pursuant to CCP § 631.8 on the grounds that defendant and cross-complainant Angeles Contractor, Inc. (“Angeles”) has not produced sufficient evidence to prove the breach of a tort duty or evidence in support of the other elements of its negligence cause of action and that the negligence cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. Cross-Defendants contend that as a matter of law, Angeles has produced no evidence of a tort duty separate and apart from the contractual duties arising from the subcontract agreement for the welding and structural steel work on the Temple City School Project, nor has it produced evidence to prove the other elements for a negligence claim.

On November 15, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to December 28, 2023, and permitted supplemental briefing. Accordingly, Angeles filed a supplemental brief on December 8, 2023; Cross-Defendants filed their supplemental brief on December 21, 2023.

“After a party has completed his presentation of evidence in a trial by the court, the other party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in support of his defense or in rebuttal in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8(a).) “Such motion may also be made and granted as to any cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8(a).) “A motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is the equivalent of a nonsuit motion in a court trial.” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 119 fn. 5 [citing Ford v. Miller Meat Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1200].)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that on December 8, 2023, Angeles dismissed its cause of action for negligence against KCB. Therefore, the issue is whether Angeles has a claim for negligence against the remaining cross-defendants, Jaysco and Mr. Welder.

“An action in negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was a proximate or legal cause of injuries suffered by the plaintiff.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 673.) Duty is a legal issue and must be determined by the court. (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 124.) A duty of care may arise through statute, contract, the general character of the activity, or the relationship between the parties. (J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 700, 803.)

Angeles argues that Jaysco and Mr. Welder owed Angeles a duty of care, which they breached, and their breach directly caused damage to Angeles and affected Angeles’ ability to recover under its contract with the project owner. Angeles cites to Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568, 577, in which the California Supreme Court considered whether design professionals owed a duty of care to a homeowners’ association and its members for the design of an apartment building. The court stated that a duty of reasonable care was owed “for the protection of anyone who may foreseeably be endangered by the negligence, even after acceptance of the work.” (Id. at p. 575.) However, as Cross-Defendants point out in their reply brief, Beacon provides a path to recovery for Temple City, which is the owner of the project and facilities which allegedly suffered property damage, or the users of the facilities, who would suffer any potential personal injuries – not Angeles. Similarly, Angeles cannot recover under County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318, because the physical injury alleged by Angeles is to exterior and interior components of Building A, which is not owned by Angeles. The fact that Angeles sustained economic losses is not sufficient to impose a tort duty on Jaysco and Mr. Welder.

Cross-Defendants additionally argue that Angeles cannot establish the element of causation as required for a negligence claim against Jaysco and Mr. Welder because there was no evidence submitted regarding welds or work that was specifically performed by either Jaysco or Mr. Welder. The Court agrees. The element of causation requires that the breach of duty serve as a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm. (Janie H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 586.) Mr. Hoffman’s offer to “extrapolate out” each weld from daily reports to determine which weld was rejected or accepted is still too speculative to attribute any specific weld (and any accompanying damage) to JAYSCO or Mr. Welder. (See Lubka Reply Decl., Ex. 1.) The evidence referred to by Angeles in its supplemental brief is also insufficient to differentiate between damages caused by either Jaysco and Mr. Welder.

Accordingly, Cross-Defendant’s motion for judgment pursuant to CCP section 631.8 on Cross-Complainant’s third cause of action for negligence is GRANTED.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.