Case Number: BC525973    Hearing Date: October 20, 2014    Dept: 91

The Motion by Defendant, Guardquest Private Security, Inc., for Summary Judgment, filed on 8/6/14 is GRANTED. Defendant has met its burden of showing it is entitled to judgment on the causes of action against it based on the undisputed material facts proffered. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 437c(p)(2).

Plaintiff’s objections to evidence #2 is SUSTAINED based on hearsay. Objection No. 3 is SUSTAINED as irrelevant. Objection #1 is OVERRULED.

The court disregards Defendant’s objections to evidence, which are not in the format required by Cal Rules of Court 3.1354. Evidentiary objections must be filed separately and must quote the material to which objection is made. Cal Rules of Court 3.13.54.

Defendant’s case authority establishes that a special relationship exists between a hired security guard and the customers of a business that hired the guard. Guardquest owes a duty to protect customers “while on the premises.” Mata v. Mata,105 Cal. App. 4th 1121, 1128-1129(Cal. App. 1st Dist.2003). Plaintiff’s case authority equally holds that a hired security company owes a duty to business customers “while they are on the business premises.” Marois v. Royal Investigation & Patrol,162 Cal. App. 3d 193, 200(Cal. App. 4th Dist.1984).

The undisputed material facts establish that the alleged assault occurred off the premises, and therefore, Defendant did not owe a duty to Plaintiff. It is undisputed that the first “swing” and “miss” taken at Plaintiff occurred outside the bar premises on the adjacent sidewalk. UF 5. It is undisputed that the assault occurred across the street from the bar. UF 6.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant is culpable for “herding” Plaintiff outside the bar close to the alleged perpetrator or otherwise ignoring the confrontation that apparently started while the patrons were being pushed out the door. Opposition 5:11-18. Plaintiff’s AF 13-15.

In essence, Plaintiff argues Defendant should have intervened at the time the argument first occurred and prevent the subsequent assault that took place across the street. Plaintiff cites Marois v. Royal Investigation & Patrol,162 Cal. App. 3d 193, 196(Cal. App. 4th Dist.1984), wherein the plaintiff similarly argued the security company acted unreasonably in not intervening to prevent subsequent violence. Marois v. Royal Investigation & Patrol,162 Cal. App. 3d 193, 200(Cal. App. 4th Dist.1984).

Marois is factually distinguishable, because it was undisputed there that the security company was contractually obligated to secure the premises, which included patrolling the parking lot, and specifically effecting citizen’s arrests if needed and absolutely necessary “for the safety of employees and customers upon the premises.” Marois v. Royal Investigation & Patrol,162 Cal. App. 3d 193, 196(Cal. App. 4th Dist.1984). Here, there is no dispute that the initial “swing and miss” occurred outside the bar on the sidewalk, and the subsequent assault occurred across the street from the bar. UF 5 and 6. Plaintiff provides no evidence that the premises to be secured included the area where the attack occurred.

Plaintiff’s rhetorical questions bearing on the reasonableness of Defendant’s conduct do not create triable issues of fact. Opposition 5:11-18. Issues of fact are “not created by ‘speculation, conjecture, imagination or guess work.’ (Citation.) Further, an issue of fact is not raised by ‘cryptic, broadly phrased, and conclusory assertions’ (citations), or mere possibilities (citations). ‘Thus, while the court in determining a motion for summary judgment does not ‘try’ the case, the court is bound to consider the competency of the evidence presented.’” Sinai Memorial Chapel v. Dudler (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 190, 196-197,

While Marois decided that a triable issue remained as to whether the security guards acted reasonably with respect to the risk being confronted by the Plaintiff, there was evidence to support the inference that the security guard did not act reasonably. There was evidence of guidelines and proposals by the security company and landowner that specifically spelled out their responsibilities in preventing certain misconduct, which included asking “rowdy or boisterous persons to leave” and detention. Marois v. Royal Investigation & Patrol,162 Cal. App. 3d 193, 196 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.1984). Plaintiff provides no evidence of similar guidelines or proposals directing Defendant’s conduct against which a trier of fact could measure Defendant’s actions here.