Carmichael v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside CA4/3

Filed 1/7/25 Carmichael v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RAYLON CARMICHAEL et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G063589

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIC1906133)

CAFE SEVILLA OF RIVERSIDE, OPINION INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Daniel A. Ottolia and Craig G. Riemer, Judges. Affirmed. KRA Legal and Kenechi R. Agu for Plaintiffs and Appellants. The Law Offices of Richard A. Higgins and Richard A. Higgins; Nordic Star and Nocholas H. Van Parys for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

Plaintiffs were injured at a nightclub shooting that occurred during a rap concert featuring performers from rival gangs. Plaintiffs sued the defendants, the owner and operators of the nightclub, for negligence per se and strict liability on an ultrahazardous activity theory. Generally, plaintiffs claimed the defendants had failed to properly plan the event and to provide adequate security. The trial court granted defendants summary adjudication on the negligence per se claim and judgment on the pleadings on the ultrahazardous activity claim. Judgment was then entered in defendants’ favor. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment, arguing there are triable issues of fact as to both claims. We disagree. First, plaintiffs’ negligence per se claim is based on the defendants’ alleged violation of certain provisions of a conditional use permit (the permit) to operate the nightclub. But the permit was not designed to prevent the type of injuries that plaintiffs sustained. Second, hosting a rap concert, even one with performers from rival gangs, is not an ultrahazardous activity. Thus, we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case involves multiple lawsuits that were filed against defendants Café Sevila of Riverside, Inc. (Café Sevilla), Café Sevilla Incorporated, Eric Van Den Haute, and Anne Van den Haute (collectively, defendants). The lawsuits were consolidated in July 2021, but it appears the different complaints remained separate. The specific complaint involved in this appeal was filed by Raylon Carmichael, Latasha Love-Moore, Antwon Davis, Markeith White, Keisha Walker, Tyrecce Redic, and Constantina Hall (the plaintiffs). Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from a shooting that occurred on October 29, 2018, at a nightclub in Riverside (the nightclub) that was owned