2017-00220291-CU-MC

Farah Naz Nasir vs. Macys Corporate Services, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment

Filed By: Stewart, Ronald M.

Macy’s West Stores, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is unopposed, taken as a concession to the merits, and is granted.

Plaintiff alleges she fell on the premises owned by Macy’s, located at 1701 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA 95815, on October 10, 2015. Specifically, she claims the makeup stool she was sitting on slipped, causing her to fall on the floor and causing her injuries and damages. On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Macy’s for general negligence and premises liability. (Ex. A).

On December 4, 2018 , Judge Christopher Krueger granted an Order to have Macy’s Requests for Admissions deemed admitted. (Ex. E) Consequently, Plaintiff has admitted that she has no evidence to support her cause of actions of general negligence and premises liability. “(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, 983; Weil & Brown, Cal. Civil Pro. Before Trial (Rutter Guide, 2015 Update) § 8:1375.1.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff admits that she has no evidence to support her claim that Macy’s contributed to her fall. (UMF 3.) Additionally, Plaintiff admits that she has no evidence to support her claim that Macy’s had actual notice of an alleged dangerous condition that she alleges caused her fall. (UMF) Furthermore, Plaintiff admits that she has no evidence to support her claim that Macy’s had constructive notice of an alleged dangerous condition that she alleges caused her fall. (UMF 5.) Moreover, Plaintiff admits that she has no basis for her cause of action against Macy’s for negligence. (UMF 6.) In addition. Plaintiff admits that she has no basis for her cause of action against Macy’s for premises liability. (UMF 7.)

The Court must grant a motion for summary judgment 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 a judgment as a matter of law. (CCP §437c(c); Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35). Section 437c(c) imposes affirmative duty on a Court to grant summary judgment motion in appropriate case. (Preach v. Moister Rainbow (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1450). The Court must decide if a triable issue of fact exists; if none does, and the sole remaining issue is one of law, the Court has a duty to determine it. (Pittelman v. Pearce (1992)
6 Cal. App. 4th 1436, 1441; see also Seibert Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 394, 404). Summary judgment is properly granted only if the moving party’s evidence establishes that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. (Lipson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cad 362, 374; Huynh v. Ingersoll-Rand (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 825,830).

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the court engages in a three step process. The Court first identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382). Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. An issue that is “within the general area of issues framed by the pleadings” is properly before the court on a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion. (Lennar Northeast Partners v. Buice (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1576, 1582-1583.)

Second, the Court is required to determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal 4th 826, 850, quoting CCP §437c(p)
(2)). A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiffs cause of action; (Saelzer v Advance, Group 400 (2001) 25 C4th 763, 780-781). Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required only to show that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal 4th at pp. 853-855).

The Court finds that Macy’s has met its burden by establishing that the plaintiff has admitted facts which entitle Macy’s to summary judgment.

Finally, once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. CCP 437c(p). (see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326-327). In ruling on the motion, the court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.)

Because plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion, the facts in the separate statement which have been deemed admitted by plaintiff remain undisputed, and in fact could not be contested at this point unless the Court had granted a motion for relief from admissions.

The prevailing party is directed to prepare formal orders, complying with C.C.P. §437c (g) and C.R.C. Rule 3.1312.