Case Number: BC554156??? Hearing Date: October 17, 2016??? Dept: 98
YADIRA ARTEAGA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MACY?S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC554156
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT MACY?S WEST STORES, INC.?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
October 17, 2016
On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff Yadira Arteaga (?Plaintiff?) filed this action against Defendant Macy?s West Stores, Inc. (erroneously sued as Macy?s Corporate Services, Inc.) (?Macy?s?) for alleged damages arising out of an August 17, 2012 slip and fall. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped on a puddle of water in a Macy?s restroom and sustained serious injuries. Macy?s now moves for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of any dangerous condition in the subject restroom.
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.
Macy?s Evidentiary Objections
Objection No. 1 SUSTAINED
When Plaintiff entered the subject restroom, there was a young woman in the restroom washing her hands. Undisputed Material Facts (?UMF?), No. 5. Plaintiff entered one of the stalls and was moving forward to flush the toilet and slipped. UMF, No. 6. Plaintiff did not notice any water or liquid on the floor as she approached the stall. UMF, No. 7. Plaintiff testified that she was holding a bag and may have been holding a cup of coffee at the time. Deposition of Yadira Arteaga (?Arteaga Depo.?), 145:6-10. After she fell, Plaintiff realized that her back and pants were wet. UMF, No. 15. She testified that she was able to smell the substance she was laying on and that it smelled like toilet water. Arteaga Depo., 155:7-16. She further testified that she does not think that the toilet was overflowing and that she does not know the source of the liquid on the floor. Id., 157:6-9, 165:23-166:5.
The young woman washing her hands was Angie Tam. UMF, No. 19. Macy?s submits the declaration of Ms. Tam in support of its Motion. Ms. Tam states that she used the toilet in either the first or second stall. Declaration of Angie Tam, ? 3. She did not notice any spills, leaks, or puddles anywhere on the bathroom floor. Id., ? 4. She saw Plaintiff enter the second to last stall and disappear and when she turned around, Plaintiff was on the floor. Id., ?? 5-6.
Macy?s argues that Plaintiff has no evidence of a dangerous condition in the restroom and that she can only speculate as to what caused her to slip and fall. Macy?s further argues that Plaintiff does not know the source of the liquid on the floor and that it most likely came from the cup of coffee she was holding in her hand. Macy?s relies on Buehler v. Alpha Beta Co. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 729, wherein the court held that pure conjecture that a floor may have been too slippery, where the plaintiff did not see anything on the floor and did not know what caused her to slip, is legally insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id., at 734.
Plaintiff argues that there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether a dangerous condition existed, based upon the deposition testimony of Ms. Tam. During the deposition, Counsel for Plaintiff questioned Ms. Tam about her declaration and earlier emails sent by Ms. Tam in 2012. Ms. Tam testified that she no longer believed what she said in her declaration to be true. Deposition of Angie Tam, 22:16-23:1. She stated that she would revise paragraph four of the declaration to say that she does not remember any spills, leaks, or puddles from affirmatively stating that she did not notice any spills, leaks, or puddles. Id., 23:4-8. When asked whether the emails or her declaration were more accurate, Ms. Tam testified that the emails from 2012 were probably more accurate. Id., 25:11-26:5.
The Court finds that Macy?s has failed to carry its burden to prove the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. Ms. Tam?s declaration, read in conjunction with her deposition testimony, fails to establish that there was no dangerous condition. Further, Plaintiff?s deposition testimony amounts to more than the pure speculation or conjecture as that found in Buehler. While Macy?s assertion that the water on the floor may have come from Plaintiff?s cup of coffee presents an alternative interpretation of the evidence, the Court may not weigh evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine which version is more likely true. Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.
In light of the foregoing, Macy?s Motion for Summary Judgment is 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 17th day of October, 2016
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court