Banks v. Mastorakos

BRIDGET BANKS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TOM MASTORAKOS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B309937

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

August 16, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC720428, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Jude A. Akubuilo, Jude A. Akubuilo; Law Offices of George E. Omoko and George E. Omoko for Plaintiff and Appellant.

DorenfeldLaw, Inc., David K. Dorenfeld and Mazyar H. Mazarei for Defendants and Respondents.

ASHMANN-GERST, ACTING P.J.

Appellant Bridget Banks tripped and fell on the sidewalk next to a store owned by respondents Tom Mastorakos and Victoria Mastorakos through their family trust (collectively the Mastorakoses). A negligence lawsuit ensued, ending when the trial court granted the Mastorakoses' motion for summary judgment. Banks then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the trial court failed to consider a local law that she had cited during the summary judgment proceedings. The trial court ruled that Banks's motion was meritless and ordered her to pay $960.00 in sanctions.

Banks appeals both the grant of summary judgment and the sanctions order. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. The Incident and Resulting Lawsuit

In 1976, the Mastorakoses bought a commercial property at 4263 West El Segundo Boulevard in Hawthorne, California. By 2017, they had leased the building to a tenant who had not yet occupied the premises. The Mastorakoses's son, Thomas Mastorakos (Thomas), helped his elderly parents manage the property.^[1]

On the afternoon of November 9, 2017, Banks was walking down a stretch of El Segundo Boulevard in Hawthorne, California. As she passed the Mastorakoses' store, her foot caught on an uneven piece of pavement in the sidewalk, causing her to fall forward. She later sought medical treatment for injuries on her hands and knees.

On September 4, 2018, Banks sued the Mastorakoses for premises liability and general negligence.^[2] She claimed that she "tripped and fell on uneven concrete pavement covered by papers from [the Mastorakoses'] premises," and alleged that the Mastorakoses failed to both maintain the sidewalk in front of their store and to warn pedestrians of tripping hazards or other dangerous conditions.^[3]

At her deposition, Banks reiterated that she could not see the uneven pavement because the sidewalk in front of the Mastorakoses' store was obscured by "papers spilled on the ground." When asked how many papers there were, Banks could not give an estimate. Banks's daughter-in-law, Chanise Moore, provided a declaration in which she stated that there was always litter piled in front of the Mastorakoses' store.

Banks also submitted photographs of the sidewalk.^[4] The photographs show the uneven pavement that Banks tripped on, as well as a few dead leaves, crumpled papers, and similar litter on the sidewalk outside the Mastorakoses' store. One photograph purports to show a pile of mail on the floor inside the store, just underneath the mail slot.

Lastly, Banks submitted two opinions from two experts, who each concluded that the Mastorakoses failed to repair the uneven pavement and to clear the sidewalk of debris.

II. Motion for Summary Judgment

On March 24, 2020, the Mastorakoses moved for summary judgment, arguing Banks could not prove that they had caused the allegedly dangerous condition leading to her fall. They attached Thomas's declaration, in which he stated that during occasional visits to the premises, he had never seen "any mail or paperwork for [the business] on the sidewalk, as the premises has its own mail slot to deliver mail directly into the premises."^[5]

On July 13, 2020, Banks filed an opposition to the motion. She conceded that she "d[id] not know where the thrash [sic] came from," but argued that the Mastorakoses had a statutory duty under state and local law to maintain the sidewalk regardless, per section 5610 of the Streets and Highways Code and section 12.04.031 of the Hawthorne Municipal Code. Alternatively, Banks advanced Moore's declaration as evidence that the trash "came from the front door of the . . . defendant's property."

The trial court set a hearing on the summary judgment motion for August 3, 2020. On July 30, 2020, the trial court posted a tentative ruling granting the summary judgment motion. The tentative ruling explained that since Banks's accident occurred on the sidewalk, the sidewalk accident decisions doctrine controlled her case. Accordingly, Banks needed to show that the Mastorakoses caused or contributed to the allegedly dangerous condition of the sidewalk in order for them to be held liable for her fall. Since Banks's complaint identified the paper debris concealing the uneven pavement as the dangerous condition, she had the burden of demonstrating that the Mastorakoses created that accumulation of debris. The court ultimately determined that Banks had not proffered sufficient evidence to meet her burden.

At the hearing, Banks's counsel confirmed that he had read the trial court's tentative order. The trial court then asked Banks to explain "[h]ow . . . we know the defendants caused the debris," as opposed to it "blow[ing] down on the sidewalk from somewhere else." Banks pointed to Moore's testimony stating that there was always litter in front of the Mastorakoses' store, and contended that "the defendant cause[d] the debris . . . by not putting in place any form of protocol to clean the premises."

On August 5, 2020, the trial court adopted its tentative order and granted the motion for summary judgment.

III. Motion for Reconsideration and Sanctions

On August 12, 2020, Banks filed a motion for reconsideration of the Mastorakoses' summary judgment motion. Banks requested that "the court excuse any neglect on the part of counsel . . . to the extent that there was a failure to direct the court's mind to the provisions of . . . [s]ection 12.04.031" of the Hawthorne Municipal Code. Banks insisted that this provision imposed liability on the Mastorakoses for their failure to maintain the sidewalk, and argued that the Mastorakoses had caused the trash to accumulate by "plac[ing] the entrance door to the business premises right on the sidewalk" and "fail[ing] to inspect . . . the premises and remove papers dumped at the entrance."

On September 25, 2020, the Mastorakoses filed a motion for sanctions, claiming that the motion for reconsideration was "improper and frivolous." On October 6, 2020, they filed an opposition to Banks's motion.

On December 30, 2020, the trial court denied Banks's motion for reconsideration. The court confirmed that it had considered the municipal code provision, but found that Banks's uncertainty as to whether it had done so was "not a lawful basis for a motion for reconsideration." It denounced the motion in strong language, calling it "an abuse of [the] litigation process," and "admonish[ing] [Banks's] counsel not to file motions of this nature again." Accordingly, the court granted the Mastorakoses' request for sanctions, ordering Banks and her attorney to pay $960.00.

Banks timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment

A. Applicable law and standard of review

A "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." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) "To secure summary judgment, a moving defendant may . . . disprove at least one essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action [citations] or show that an element of the cause of action cannot be established." (Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1465; Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482 ["a moving defendant need not support [her] motion with affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the responding party's case"].)

Summary judgment is subject to de novo review. In conducting our review, "we follow the traditional three-step analysis. 'We first identify the issues framed by the pleadings, since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond. Secondly, we determine whether the moving party has established facts which negate the opponents' claim and justify a judgment in the movant's favor. Finally, if the summary judgment motion prima facie justifies a judgment, we determine whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material factual issue. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 967, 975.) A triable issue of fact exists only if a trier of fact could reasonably conclude under the applicable standard of proof that a contested fact in favor of the opposing party is established. (Alexander v. Codemasters Group Limited (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 129, 139.)

In "reviewing the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment, we liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts about the evidence in that party's favor. [Citation.]" (Caliber Paving Co., Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty & Management, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 175, 190.)

B. Analysis

Banks's complaint alleges two causes of action against the Mastorakoses: premises liability and general negligence. "The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages." (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Therefore, the Mastorakoses were entitled to summary judgment if they negated, or showed that Banks could not adequately establish, any one of these four elements.

Our...