DANIEL SHAWN STUDNEY VS GENG SUN ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC676111    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Sun Family Trust, Shoshana Family Trust and Faramarz Ganjian

Resp. Party: None

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

The Court finds it puzzling that this Motion for Summary Judgment was unopposed. If Plaintiff believed that he had a valid cause of action against these moving Defendants, he should have opposed the Motion for Summary Judgment. If Plaintiff agreed with the moving parties that this Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, he should have simply dismissed the moving defendants, thus saving the moving parties the time and expense of filing this motion, and saving this Court the time and effort of analyzing this Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND:

This negligence/premises liability case stems from a motor vehicle accident. On October 1, 2016, Plaintiff Daniel Shawn Studney was in a motor vehicle accident, where Defendant Geng Sun’s vehicle ran a stop sign and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing him to suffer severe injuries and damages. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Sun Family Trust, Shoshana Family Trust, Ganjian Souzan Shoshana Trust, Faramarz Ganjian, and Sun Ganjian controlled the premises located at the intersection where the accident took place, and negligently and carelessly maintained a large tree that created an obstruction to the stop sign at the intersection. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Defendant Geng Sun ran the stop sign and collided with Plaintiff because this obstruction blocked the view of the stop sign. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City of Los Angeles also negligently reviewed, evaluated, and/or regulated this intersection, stop sign, and obstructions. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants Geng Sun, Sun Family Trust, Ganjian Souzan Shoshana Trust, Faramarz Ganjian, Sun Ganjian, and City of Los Angeles for (1) motor vehicle; (2) general negligence; (3) premises liability; (4) general negligence; (5) dangerous condition of public policy liability pursuant to Government Code sections 835 et seq., 840.2 and 945; and (6) respondeat superior liability pursuant to Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, 815.6, 820, 830, 835, 835.2, and 945.

On December 13, 2017, Sun Family Trust, Shoshana Family Trust, and Faramarz Ganjian filed a cross-complaint against Geng Sun for (1) indemnification; (2) apportionment of fault; and (3) declaratory relief.

On December 15, 2017, City of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against Geng Sun for (1) indemnification; (2) apportionment of fault; and (3) declaratory relief.

On December 26, 2017, Sun Family Trust, Shoshana Family Trust, and Faramarz Ganjian filed an amendment to the cross-complaint, substituting ROE 1 with City of Los Angeles.

On September 12, 2019, Sun Family Trust, Shoshana Family Trust, and Faramarz Ganjian filed the instant unopposed motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that there is no triable issue as to any material fact in regard to the complaint.

ANALYSIS:

A. Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (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.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy its initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520 (Scalf).)

More specifically, “[o]n 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, supra,128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1519.) A 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 . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . 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).) 

B. Discussion

Sun Family Trust, Shoshana Family Trust, and Faramarz Ganjian (“Defendants”) move for an order granting summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot establish the necessary elements of General Negligence or Premises Liability causes of action asserted against these defendants. (Notice of Motion, p. 2:7-12.) Defendants maintain that “the undisputed material facts show [they] did not own, possess, or control the location of Plaintiff’s incident and was not responsible for performing any inspections, maintenance, or pruning of the tree located on the sidewalk of South Almont Drive; [they] did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff with respect to the location of the Plaintiff’s incident; [they] did not cause nor contribute to the motor vehicle accident which resulted in Plaintiff's injuries; and therefore, [they] cannot be liable under the causes of action in the Complaint.” (Id. at p. 2:12-18.)

The elements of negligence are (1) the legal duty to use due care; (2) a breach of such legal duty; (3) causation; and (4) resulting damages. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) “Liability for negligent conduct may only be imposed where there is a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff or to a class of which the plaintiff is a member.” (Ibid. [quoting J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 803].)

Premises liability is a form of negligence and the elements are the same: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “The owner of premises is under a duty of care to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.)

“In premises liability cases, summary judgment may properly be granted where a defendant unequivocally establishes its lack of ownership, possession, or control of the property alleged to be in a dangerous or defective condition. [Citation.]” (Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 76, 81; Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134 [“A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control. Where the absence of ownership, possession, or control has been unequivocally established, summary judgment is proper. [Citation.]”].) Without the crucial element of control over the subject premises, no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury exists. (Ibid.)

City of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 62.161 states:

“The Board, through its authorized officers and employees, shall exercise jurisdiction and control over the planting, maintenance and care of trees, plants and shrubs in all streets of the City.”

City of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 62.162, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part:

“ . . . [T]he Board, through its authorized officers and employees, shall have charge of and direct and supervise the planting, removal, trimming, pruning, cutting and maintenance of trees, plants and shrubs in the streets of the City, and shall have charge of all work incidental to the above activities, and shall issue all permits for the replacement, removal, planting, cutting, pruning or trimming of trees, shrubs and plants in the streets of the City.”

The undisputed evidence shows that since moving to the residence, Defendants have not trimmed, maintained, or cared for the tree that is located in front of the residence and that blocked the stop sign. (Faramarz Ganjian Decl., ¶¶ 6, 15.) Further, in 2011, shortly after moving to the residence, Faramarz Ganjian notified the City that the tree was overgrown and needed to be maintained. (Faramarz Ganjian Decl., ¶¶ 11.) The City of Los Angeles told Faramarz Ganjian not to touch the tree at issue. (Id. at ¶ 12.) The City of Los Angeles failed to maintain the tree prior to the October 1, 2016 motor vehicle accident at issue in this case. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.)

The Court finds that Defendants have established that they were not under a duty of care in the management of the tree, as they were not the owners of the tree. Instead, City of Los Angeles was the owner of the tree and had the responsibility to maintain the tree in a safe condition pursuant to the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 62.161 and 62.162, subdivision (a). Defendants have shown that there are no triable issues as any material fact regarding the duty owed to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion for Summary Judgment, and has not presented any evidence to show that there are triable issues of material fact.

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.