gno.law

Herrera v. 99¢ Only Stores CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D059877 · 2013-06-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2008-00095210-CU-PO-CTL
Trial judge
Luis R. Vargas (retired judge)
Outcome
reversed — Reversed.
Area
civil
Panel
McINTYRE (author), O'Rourke, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:53Z · confidence high

The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's general negligence, premises liability, and products liability claims. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of production for the negligence theories alleging the store created the hazardous condition.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Granting of summary judgment on the general negligence cause of action
“Because the Store failed to meet its initial burden of proof, the court erred when it granted the Store's summary judgment motion.”
de novoerroragree with court
The appellate court correctly applied the three-step summary judgment analysis. It recognized that while the defendant met its burden for notice-based theories, it failed to address the plaintiff's alternative theories that the defendant created the hazard, which imputes notice. Under Aguilar and Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, the moving party must negate at least one element of every tenable theory; by ignoring the 'creation of hazard' theories, the trial court erred in shifting the burden to the plaintiff.

Authorities

  • relied: Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 — The moving party bears an initial burden of production to show the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact by showing one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established.
  • relied: Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200 — Store owners must have actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition to be liable in slip and fall cases, and the care required is commensurate with the risks involved.
  • relied: Hatfield v. Levy Brothers (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798 — When a store owner or its employees create the hazardous condition, notice is imputed to the store owner.
  • relied: Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472 — If a store owner's practices create a higher risk that dangerous conditions will exist, ordinary care requires a corresponding increase in precautions.
  • relied: AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061 — Summary judgment motions on appeal raise only questions of law and are reviewed de novo.
  • relied: Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048 — Appellate courts apply the same three-step analysis as trial courts when reviewing summary judgment.
  • relied: Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95 — When analyzing summary judgment evidence, the court strictly construes the moving party's evidence and liberally construes the opposing party's evidence.
  • relied: Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705 — The moving party's burden includes addressing all liability theories contained in a plaintiff's pleadings.
  • relied: Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454 — If the moving party does not meet its initial burden of production, the nonmoving party does not have to produce any evidence, and the motion must be denied.
  • relied: Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156 — Summary judgment may not be granted when the moving party has failed to refute a tenable pleaded theory.
  • relied: Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936 — A moving party must refute a tenable pleaded theory to obtain summary judgment.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly distinguishes between notice-based negligence theories and theories where the defendant created the hazard, applying the imputed notice rule from Hatfield. It properly identifies that the defendant's evidence failed to address the specific elements of the 'creation of hazard' theories, thus failing the initial burden under Aguilar.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence medium

The trial court granted 99¢ Only Stores' motion for summary judgment on Shannon Herrera's slip-and-fall complaint (general negligence, products liability, premises liability), finding no actual or constructive notice of the spilled soda. The Court of Appeal, after requesting supplemental briefing on the moving party's initial burden, reversed because the Store's evidence addressed only notice and did not refute Herrera's pleaded theories that the Store's own employees created the hazard by improperly stocking and failing to inspect the soda.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Grant of summary judgment on the general negligence cause of action as a whole
“The Store's evidence, strictly construed, did not address two of Herrera's negligence theories. Because the Store failed to meet its initial burden of proof, the court erred when it granted the Store's summary judgment motion.”
de novoerror (law misapplied)agree with court
Under Aguilar and Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2), a defendant must show that one or more elements of each pleaded theory cannot be established before the burden shifts; Lopez and Teselle require the movant to address all tenable pleaded theories. Herrera pleaded that the Store itself created the hazard through improper stocking and failure to inspect, and under Hatfield notice is imputed where the owner or its employees create the condition, so evidence negating only actual or constructive notice did not refute those theories. The court properly complied with the supplemental-briefing requirement before reversing on a ground not raised by appellant.
Determination that the Store met its initial burden on the failure-to-warn and failure-to-clean-up theories (notice-based theories)
“We agree the Store met its initial burden with respect to Herrera's failure to warn and failure to clean up the liquid theories of liability.”
de novocorrectagree with court
These theories are functionally premises liability claims governed by Ortega, which requires actual or constructive notice; the hourly inspection report, assistant managers' declarations and Herrera's deposition negated notice and Herrera offered no contrary evidence. The appellate court's agreement with this portion of the trial court's analysis is consistent with Ortega.
Summary judgment on the products liability and premises liability causes of action
“On appeal, Herrera does not claim the trial court erred in finding against her on her products liability and premises liability causes of action.”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
Herrera did not challenge these rulings, so the court did not review them; because summary judgment on the whole action was reversed, the judgment falls, but the opinion expresses no view on these causes of action.

Authorities

  • relied: Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 — Moving defendant bears an initial burden of production to show the plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of the cause of action; only then does the burden shift to the opposing party.
  • relied: Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200 — Store owner is liable for a dangerous condition only with actual or constructive notice; care required is commensurate with the risks involved.
  • relied: Hatfield v. Levy Brothers (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798 — When the store owner or its employees create the hazardous condition, notice is imputed to the owner and need not be separately proven.
  • relied: Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705 — Moving party's burden on summary judgment includes addressing all liability theories contained in the plaintiff's pleadings.
  • relied: Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454 — If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, the opposing party need not produce evidence and the motion must be denied.
  • relied: Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156 — Summary judgment may not be granted when the moving party has failed to refute a tenable pleaded theory.
  • relied: Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936 — Movant must refute tenable pleaded theories to obtain summary judgment.
  • relied: Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472 — Where customer conduct creates a hazard, notice is still required, but store practices creating a higher risk call for correspondingly increased precautions; distinguished because here the Store itself allegedly created the hazard.
  • relied: AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061 — Appeal from summary judgment raises only questions of law reviewed de novo.
  • relied: Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048 — Reviewing court applies the same three-step analysis as the trial court on summary judgment.
  • relied: Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95 — Moving party's evidence is strictly construed and opposing party's evidence liberally construed.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly framed the issues by the pleadings, applied Aguilar's burden-shifting framework and Hatfield's imputed-notice rule, and persuasively distinguished Moore and the Store's federal authority, while complying with the supplemental-briefing requirement before reversing on an unbriefed ground. The suggestion that an employee mishandled the case is somewhat speculative, but it is immaterial because the burden never shifted to Herrera.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/27/13 Herrera v. 99¢ Only Stores CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON HERRERA, D059877

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2008-00095210- CU-PO-CTL) 99¢ ONLY STORES, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Luis R. Vargas, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct.) Reversed.

Gregory S. Cilli for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Morris Polich & Purdy, Jens B. Koepke, Scott M. Koppel and Danilo D.

Endoso for Defendant and Respondent.

In this slip and fall case, the defendant, 99¢ Only Stores (the Store), moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Store's motion and entered judgment in favor of the Store. Shannon Herrera appealed. As we shall explain, we conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2006, Herrera and her husband entered the Store to shop.

Approximately 10 minutes after entering the Store, Herrera walked into an aisle and slipped and landed on her back.

While lying on the floor, Herrera noticed a six-foot-wide puddle of clear sticky liquid. To her left, she could also see a clear liquid dripping down the shelves to the floor. Herrera's husband noticed a case of lemon-lime soda on a high shelf that looked "crunched" with its bottom soaked and a liquid dripping from that shelf.

About twenty minutes after the fall, paramedics arrived and took Herrera to the hospital. She suffered a fractured tailbone, a herniated disk and a pinched sciatic nerve in her right leg.

Herrera's operative complaint alleged three causes of action for general negligence, products liability, and premises liability. The Store generally denied Herrera's allegations. Later, it moved for summary judgment.

In response to the general negligence and premises liability causes of action, the Store alleged it did not have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

For the products liability cause of action, it alleged Herrera could not establish a defective soda can caused her accident. The court granted the motion and entered judgment in the Store's favor. Herrera timely appealed.

2 On appeal, Herrera does not claim the trial court erred in finding against her on her products liability and premises liability causes of action. She, however, contends the trial court erred in finding that the reasonable and permissible inferences from the evidence demonstrated no triable issue of fact on her general negligence cause of action. We requested further briefing on whether the Store had met its initial burden to show that either one or more elements of the general negligence cause of action could not be established. Both parties provided a response.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards A summary judgment motion on appeal "raises only questions of law regarding the construction and effect of the supporting and opposing papers"; therefore, we review the record de novo. (AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1064.) In doing so, we apply the same three-step analysis the trial court performs. (Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1054.) We first identify the issues framed by the pleadings because it is those issues the papers must address. (Ibid.) Second, we determine if the moving party's evidence demonstrates the opponent cannot establish its claim and justifies a judgment in the moving party's favor. (Ibid.) Lastly, we determine whether the opposing party's evidence demonstrates a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.) When analyzing the parties' evidence, we strictly construe the moving party's evidence and liberally construe the opposing party's evidence. (Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95, 100.)

3 The moving party bears an initial burden of production to show the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) To meet this burden, the moving party's evidence must show that "one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action."

(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.) This burden includes addressing all liability theories contained in a plaintiff's pleadings. (Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 717.)

If the moving party does not meet its initial burden of production, the nonmoving party does not have to produce any evidence, and the court must deny the summary judgment motion. (See § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 469.) "A summary judgment may not be granted when the moving party has failed to 'refute [a] tenable pleaded theor[y].' [Citation.]" (Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 161–162 [quoting Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 942].)

Our Supreme Court set the standard for slip and fall cases: store owners must have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp.

(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206 (Ortega).) However, when the store owner or its employees create the hazardous condition, notice is imputed to the store owner.

(Hatfield v. Levy Brothers (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798, 806.)

4 II. Analysis In her general negligence cause of action, Herrera alleged four liability theories.

Two liability theories concerned notice to the Store of the hazardous condition.

Specifically, Herrera alleged the Store failed to warn her of the hazardous condition and that it failed to clean up the liquid on the floor.

Herrera's other two general negligence theories concerned actions taken by the Store or its employees. She alleged the Store improperly stocked the soda on the shelf which caused soda to leak onto the floor. She also alleged the Store failed to inspect the cans when it stocked the cans on the shelf. Herrera, in other words, alleged the Store or its employees created the hazardous condition.

We agree the Store met its initial burden with respect to Herrera's failure to warn and failure to clean up the liquid theories of liability. These general negligence theories are no different than a premises liability cause of action where a store owner must have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition before a breach of duty can be found. (See Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1206.) The hourly inspection report, the declaration of the Store's assistant managers, and Herrera's deposition satisfied the Store's production burden on these theories and shifted the burden to Herrera to show a triable issue of material fact. Herrera failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact on these two theories.

This same evidence, however, is not sufficient to shift the burden to Herrera on her remaining two general negligence theories. When a store owner or its employees create the hazardous condition, notice is imputed to the store owner. (Hatfield v. Levy 5 Brothers, supra, 18 Cal.2d at p. 806.) In order for the Store to shift the burden to Herrera, it had to produce evidence, such as declarations, affidavits, or other records, to show Herrera could not establish one or more elements of her remaining negligence theories. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853–855.) The Store's evidence only addressed actual or constructive notice, not its precautionary actions taken while stocking soda on the morning of the accident. Because the Store failed to provide any evidence which showed Herrera could not establish her remaining negligence theories, the burden did not shift to Herrera to produce any evidence. (See § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 469.) Therefore, any evidence she did submit is immaterial to the ultimate decision.

In its supplemental brief, the Store argued it had shifted the burden to Herrera because it had provided evidence to negate the actual or constructive notice requirement in premises liability claims, and Herrera could not use her complaint "to fill th[at] evidentiary void." Relying on Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472 (Moore) and Lively v. Wild Oats Markets (C.D.Cal., Nov. 3, 2006, No. CV 04-117-RGK) [2006 WL 5085248] (Lively), it further argued that alleging "how a store owner operated its store was negligent does not obviate the need to show some actual or constructive notice."

The Store's reliance on Moore and Lively is misplaced. Moore concerned actions by customers, which caused a hazardous condition. (Moore, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 478 [customers allowed to take food into store].) Moore is 6 distinguishable. Here, Herrera alleged the Store created the hazardous condition not its customers.

Lively concerned actions by employees, which caused a hazardous condition.

(Lively, supra, 2006 WL 5085248 at p. *1 [employees placed floral arrangement, which leaked water, on floor where customers would walk by it].) The store in Lively, though, took precautionary measures to counter the higher risk that its employees' actions might cause a hazardous condition. (Id. at p. *2 [store placed slip-resistant mat in front of display].) Here, assuming the Store created the hazardous condition as alleged by Herrera, it failed to present evidence that it increased precautions in response to the risk it created. (Moore, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 479 ["If the store owner's practices create a higher risk that dangerous conditions will exist, ordinary care will require a corresponding increase in precautions."]; see also Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1205 ["the care required is commensurate with the risks involved"].)

The Store admitted its employees stocked soda on the morning of Herrera's accident. A reasonable inference from this evidence, coupled with the fact of the liquid on the floor, is that an employee mishandled the case while stocking it, thus causing damage to soda in the case which then leaked liquid on the floor. The Store's actual or constructive notice argument in its summary judgment motion did not obviate its burden to show Herrera did not and could not discover evidence to prove her negligence theory. For example, the Store could have provided evidence showing increased inspections after it stocked its shelves or how it trained its employees to minimize damage to inventory when it stocked its shelves.

7 The Store's evidence, strictly construed, did not address two of Herrera's negligence theories. Because the Store failed to meet its initial burden of proof, the court erred when it granted the Store's summary judgment motion.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed. Herrera is to recover her costs on appeal.

MCINTYRE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus