Case Name: Lopez v. Oakland Realty Loan Service, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2014-1-CV-266071

Defendants Oakland Realty Loan Service, Inc. (“Oakland Realty”), John R. Oettinger (“John”), Una M. Oettinger (“Una”), The Oettinger 1979 Trust (the “Oettinger Trust”) and Chris Meacham (“Meacham”), successor trustee of The Meacham Declaration of Trust Dated 5/5/87 (“Meacham Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for summary judgment in their favor and against plaintiff Beatriz Amador Lopez (“Plaintiff”).

After full consideration of the evidence, separate statements and authorities submitted by each party, the Court makes the following rulings:

Then Court declines to rule on the parties’ evidentiary objections for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(c).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendants meet their initial burden by demonstrating that they owed no duty of care to Plaintiff to inspect the Property for dangerous conditions/defects after Fusion 9 took over possession of the subject property pursuant to the lease agreement executed between the parties, and that even if they had conducted a reasonable inspection at the time that that agreement was executed, they would not have discovered the damaged/defective portion of the ceiling in the kitchen that fell on Plaintiff because it did not exist at that point in time. (See Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Nos. 5-7, 9-13.) A landlord can only be charged with liability for “those matters which would have been disclosed by reasonable inspection.” (Mora v. Baker Commodities, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) As an inspection would not have revealed something that did not exist, Defendants cannot be held liable for the injuries suffered by Plaintiff when portions of the kitchen ceiling fell on her.

In her opposition, Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of material fact. Her reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is misplaced, as that doctrine only applies in circumstances where the harm to the plaintiff was caused by something that only the defendant controlled. (See CACI No. 417; Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825-826 [stating that in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, the accident in question “must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant”].) Here, Defendants have established that Fusion 9 had exclusive control of the premises at the time of the subject incident. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that a reasonable inspection by Defendants in February 2011 would have revealed the defective/damaged condition in the kitchen ceiling that caused her to be injured, with her expert failing to opine on the observable condition of the roof and ceiling at that time specifically.