Shawna Niroumand v. Costco Wholesale, et al.

Month June 8, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 7 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM 24-CLJ-07152 SHAWNA NIROUMAND VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE, ET AL. LINE 6

SHAWNA NIROUMAND PRO PER COSTCO WHOLESALE NATHANIEL L. DUNN

DEFENDANT COSTO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) is GRANTED pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c, as follows:

The hearing on Defendant’s MSJ was continued on December 15, 2025 at Plaintiff’s request to provide an opportunity to conduct discovery. Since that time, no additional documents have been filed with respect to the MSJ. The record therefore remains the same as it was prior to the December 15, 2025 hearing. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(b)(1) provides that a Motion for Summary Judgment “shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” Under Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there is no triable issue of any material fact. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to make a prima facie showing that there is a triable issue of material fact.

The elements of negligence are: (1) defendant's duty to conform to certain standard of care for protection of others against unreasonable risks; (2) defendant's breach of that duty; (3) reasonably close connection between defendant’s conduct and resulting injuries, otherwise known as proximate causation; and (4) actual loss suffered by plaintiff. E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1285.

Defendant’s Motion focuses on the element of duty, maintaining that Defendant did not owe a duty of care because the accident was not foreseeable. The existence of a legal duty is generally a question of law. Beauchene v. Synanon Foundation Inc. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 342. In cases of the duty owed by a landowner in particular circumstances, the court looks to the foreseeability of the harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, and the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (superseded by statute on other grounds); Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 771.

Defendant has offered admissible evidence that the child that Plaintiff claimed was responsible for her injury was the child of a customer. Crowell Decl., ¶7. Plaintiff has offered no admissible evidence that the child involved in Plaintiff’s accident was the child of any of Defendant’s employees working the day of the accident. And, no Costco employee was aware that a child was riding a scooter in the warehouse prior to Plaintiff’s injury. Id., at ¶8. Defendant’s business records show “no other accidents in which a Costco member shopping at the Redwood City warehouse was injured as a result of a child riding a scooter inside

Month June 8, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 8 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ the warehouse, or in the parking lot.” Ruijters Decl., ¶8. On these facts, Defendant has shown a low degree of foreseeability of the harm suffered by Plaintiff and no closeness between Defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, since Defendant did not have an opportunity to intervene in the conduct of the child brought in by a member. Defendant therefore did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care to prevent the particular harm caused, and Plaintiff cannot satisfy the duty element of her claim.

Defendant has satisfied its burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there is no triable issue of any material fact, and the burden shifted to Plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff’s “Responses to Undisputed Material Facts Filed by Defendant’s Lawyer” contain allegations she contends contests Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts, but no evidence is cited or provided to support them. Plaintiff therefore has not met her burden, and the Motion is accordingly GRANTED.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendant’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.