FRANCES SANTILLIAN CORRAL VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5313    Hearing Date: May 20, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

FINAL RULING

MOVING PAPERS:

1. Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2. Declaration of Shannon Mockridge in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
3. Declaration of Jeffrey M. Anielski in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
4. Notice of Lodgment in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
5. Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Frances Santillian-Corall (“Plaintiff”) alleges she sustained injuries when she stepped into an uncovered utility box on the sidewalk. Defendant City Light & Power Inc. (“Defendant”) maintained utility boxes for Defendant City of Long Beach (“City”). Defendant moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

LEGAL STANDARDS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474 [summary judgment standards held by Aguilar apply to summary adjudication motions].) Further, in line with Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., “[o]n a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no discretion to exercise. If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the challenged causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable issue of fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s complaint for negligence and premises liability. 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.)  Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.  (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)  

Because a property owner is not the insurer of the safety of its guests, the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition is key to establishing liability.  (Hall v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1139; Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)

Here, Defendant contends it did not have actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition prior to Plaintiff’s accident.

Defendant advances the declaration of Shannon Mockridge (“Mockridge”), who is a regional manager for Defendant. Mockridge states that Defendant first received a request from the City to install a new lid on the utility box on October 12, 2016, which was after Plaintiff’s accident. (See Declaration of Shannon Mockridge, ¶ 4.) This evidence meets Defendant’s burden to show that Defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the broken lid on the utility box prior to Plaintiff’s accident. (See also Defendant’s Separate Statement, Undisputed Material Facts, Nos. 1-8.)

Defendant has shifted the burden to Plaintiff to raise triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition prior to Plaintiff’s accident. As Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of production.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to raise triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant is liable for negligence or premises liability. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s order, and to file a proof of service of such.