Case Number: BC552626??? Hearing Date: October 14, 2016??? Dept: 98
MARCO A. ROJAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC552626
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
October 14, 2016
On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff Marco A. Rojas (?Plaintiff?) filed this action against Defendants Priority Building Services, LLC (?Moving Defendant?) and Priority Building Services Incorporated (collectively, ?Defendants?) for alleged damages arising out of a July 30, 2012 slip and fall. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were hired to provide janitorial services at the subject premises, Plaintiff?s place of employment. Plaintiff further alleges that he slipped on a wet floor while walking into the restroom at the subject premises. Moving Defendant now moves for summary judgment.
In analyzing motions 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. ?The motion for summary judgment shall be granted 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. . . .? Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 437c(c). Generally, ?the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.? Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.
The subject restroom was equipped with three toilets, three urinals, a shower, and two large wash basins located in the middle of the area. Undisputed Material Facts (?UMF?), No. 3. There were no ordinary bathroom sinks, making the wash basins the only place where employees could wash their hands. UMF, No. 4. Approximately 100 other employees were working the same shift as Plaintiff. UMF, No. 5. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Plaintiff and a fellow co-worker entered the restroom and Plaintiff slipped and fell. UMF, No. 6. Raul Montero was Moving Defendant?s employee tasked with cleaning the subject restroom on that date. UMF, No. 7.
Moving Defendant contends that Mr. Montero finished cleaning the restroom by 10:10 p.m. Domingo Soriano, a manager of Moving Defendant, avers on information and belief that Mr. Montero began cleaning the restroom at around 9:15 to 9:20 p.m. and completed his cleaning by around 10:00 to 10:10 p.m. Declaration of Domingo Soriano, ? 6. Declarations must show personal knowledge and competency. Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 638. The Court finds that Mr. Soriano?s statements made on information and belief fail to show personal knowledge, and Plaintiff?s objections to his declaration on this ground are sustained.
Plaintiff contends that the cleaning was not complete until much later. Sergio Avina, one of Plaintiff?s co-workers at the time of the incident, states that he went to the restroom at approximately 11:00 p.m. Declaration of Sergio Avina. He further states that he saw the janitor mopping the floor while he was in the restroom and that the janitor left the restroom before he did. Id. According to Plaintiff, there were no yellow caution signs in the entrance of the restroom at the time. Deposition of Marco A. Rojas, 85:5-7.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Moving Defendant has failed to show the nonexistence of any triable issue of material facts. The Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore DENIED.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT98@lacourt.org 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 will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 14th day of October, 2016
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court