On 03/22/2018 JUDITH ROSS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against JODIE RENK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Other.
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
HOLLY E. KENDIG
THOMAS D. LONG
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE
CARR JAMES P. ESQ.
CARR JAMES PATRICK
ANDERSON SHELLY HAY
GUY DOUGLAS D. ESQ.
GUY DOUGLAS DAWSON
2/7/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF COURT'S MINUTE ORDER RE: NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
2/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)
1/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
1/8/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/20/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JODIE RENK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/20/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF BRAD P. AVRIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JODIE RENK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/25/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
7/25/2018: Notice of Deposit - Jury -
11/30/2018: Request - Request for Special Notice
11/30/2018: Notice - Notice of First Lien
5/20/2019: Notice of Lien
7/9/2018: DEFENDANT JODIE RENKS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7/9/2018: DEFENDANT JODIE RENK'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
7/13/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
8/7/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt -
8/7/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -
3/22/2018: CoverSheet -
3/22/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet -
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Judith Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((conditional)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Jury Trial ((1x6mos)) - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Notice of Court's Minute Order re: Non-Appearance Case Review re: Notice of Settlement); Filed by Judith Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 11:03 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Judith Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Notice of Settlement)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT JODIE RENK'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT JODIE RENKS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT JODIE RENKS REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
Docketfor statement of damages; Filed by Jodie Renk (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Jodie Renk (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Judith Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Judith Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaintRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC698893 Hearing Date: January 14, 2020 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
JODIE RENK, ET AL.,
CASE NO: BC698893
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
January 14, 2020
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Judith Ross filed this action against Defendnat, Jodie Renk for damages arising out of a trip and fall on an area rug in Defendant’s home. Plaintiff was working as a real estate agent and showing Defendant’s home at the time she fell.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment
a. Relief Sought
At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the complaint. She contends she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Privette and its progeny.
b. Law Governing Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c).) Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.” (Id. at §437c(o)(2).) A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.) Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.” (Ibid.)
The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A defendant moving for summary judgment must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Id. at §437c(p).) A defendant may discharge this burden by furnishing either (1) affirmative evidence of the required facts or (2) discovery responses conceding that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish an essential element of the plaintiff's case.
[A] defendant may simply show the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action “by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Id. at p. 854.) Thus, rather than affirmatively disproving or negating an element (e.g., causation), a defendant moving for summary judgment has the option of presenting evidence reflecting the plaintiff does not possess evidence to prove that element. “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing” to support an essential element of his case. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 855.) Under the latter approach, a defendant's initial evidentiary showing may “consist of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses, or admissions by the plaintiff in deposition or in response to requests for admission that he or she has not discovered anything that supports an essential element of the cause of action.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) In other words, a defendant may show the plaintiff does not possess evidence to support an element of the cause of action by means of presenting the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses from which an absence of evidence may be reasonably inferred. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.)
Thus, a moving defendant has two means by which to shift the burden of proof under the summary judgment statute: “The defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon. [Citation.] [Or a]lternatively, the defendant may utilize the tried and true technique of negating (‘disproving’) an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” (Brantly v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598.)
Leyva v. Garcia (2018) 231 Cal.Rptr.3d. 814, 819-820.
Until the moving defendant has discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come forward with any evidence. Once the moving defendant has discharged its burden as to a particular cause of action, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action. (Id. at §437c(p)(2).) On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's supporting documents are strictly construed and those of his opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21.)
c. Privette Doctrine
Causes of action available to an injured employee of an independent contractor against the hirer of that contractor (i.e., the general contractor, owner, developer, etc.) have been severely limited. Vicarious liability-based causes of action or theories are precluded. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198.
However, the owners can be held directly liable if their conduct affirmatively contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. Ordinarily, the person hiring an independent contractor is not liable to the contractor's employees for on-the-job injuries. The independent contractor's employer's liability for such injuries is limited by workers' compensation, and the party who hired the contractor (and who indirectly paid for the contractor's workers' compensation coverage) likewise gets the benefit of that coverage. Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 693, 700-702; Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1244-1245; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 264-270.
The Supreme Court has held that it would be unfair to impose liability on the hiring person when the liability of the contractor, the one primarily responsible for its worker’s on-the-job injuries, is limited to providing workers’ compensation coverage. As such, even if there is evidence that the hirer was directly liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, recovery is not available under the peculiar risk doctrine. Privette, supra.
Defendant fails to provide any authority applying Privette or its progeny in the context of a real estate agent., and the Court knows of none. This is not a case where Plaintiff was hired to fix the area rug or the area surrounding the area rug. This is a mere premises liability case, and does not relate to the Privette doctrine. The motion for summary judgment is therefore denied.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com 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.