Garcia vs. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

record for client effective upon filing of a proof of service of the signed order on client.

Moving attorney is to give notice.

8 23-01361430 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Garcia vs. Ross Dress Defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is for Less, Inc. DENIED.

“In order to establish liability on a negligence theory, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation and damages. [¶] A store owner exercises ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers, and the care required is commensurate with the risks involved.” (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205 [cleaned up].)

Defendant failed to satisfy its burden of disproving the element of breach of duty in Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant provides evidence of its employees swept the area where the incident occurred within at least 10 minutes of the accident occurring and there was no liquid on the ground. However, Defendant admits the liquid excreted from a small ball which was on the ground. (UMF 11.) Defendant does not establish for the purposes of its summary judgment motion when the ball was moved to the area around the incident.

Further, viewing the evidence in a light most favorably to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the ball itself constituted a tripping hazard which should have been removed by Defendant’s employee. Therefore, summary judgment and summary adjudication as to the causes of action for negligence and premise liability are denied. 9 25-01486648 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Ghadiri vs. Floor and Defendant Floor and Décor Outlets of America, Inc.’s Motion to Decor Outlets of Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED as moot. American, Inc. Defendant’s request for sanction is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,343.33 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally.

Plaintiff provided supplemental responses on March 12, 2026 which substantively changed the responses. Thus, Defendant’s motion is moot.

Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (