Case Number: BC611545 Hearing Date: August 10, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MOTION GRANTED

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff Steven Harrell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Brigid McBride (“Defendant”) and Martin Delgadillo (collectively, “Defendants”) for premise liability and general negligence relating to injuries sustained on February 25, 2014 when he was struck by a falling tree branch from a tree being trimmed. Defendant McBride moves for summary judgment on grounds she did not breach any duty owed to Plaintiff or cause his injuries.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 25, 2014, Plaintiff was walking near Defendant’s property in Venice, California. (Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” Nos. 1, 2.) Defendant had hired Martine Delgadillo (“Delgadillo”) and his two associates to trim the branches on the trees in her front yard. (UMF No. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that while Delgadillo was trimming the branches, one of the clipped branches fell and struck him in the head causing injuries. (UMF No. 5.)

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages . . . or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 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 of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

“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 of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.” (Ibid.) “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.)

IV. DISCUSSION

The elements of negligence and premises liability are the same: duty, breach, causation and damages. (County of Santa Clara v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) “The owner of premises is under a duty 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; Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)

On August 3, 2017, Defendant served Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff. (UMF No. 9.) Plaintiff failed to serve any responses (UMF No. 10), and on April 29, 2018, the Court deemed admitted the Requests for Admissions (UMF No. 12).

Based on these deemed admissions, Plaintiff admitted: (1) Defendant was not negligent in hiring Delgadillo (UMF No. 15; RFA No. 1); (2) Defendant’s actions on the date of the incident were not a substantial factor causing harm to Plaintiff (UMF No. 17; RFA No. 3); (3) at the time of the accident, Delgadillo and his agents were acting in a reasonable and safe manner (UMF No. 20; RFA No. 6); (4) Plaintiff was not injured by any of the actions of any of the defendants (UMF No. 21; RFA No. 7); and (5) Plaintiff admitted that he was not injured by any act or negligence of defendants (UMF No. 22; RFA No. 8).

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Requests for admissions “differs fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The purpose of the admissions procedure . . . is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” [Citations.] Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contrary evidence. [Citation.]” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition. As the above facts were deemed admitted and are subject to being contested through contrary evidence, there are no triable issues of fact as to Plaintiff’s causes of action.

V. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.