Dzharadzhyan v. Exclusive Motorcars CA2/8

Filed 3/5/15 Dzharadzhyan v. Exclusive Motorcars CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

AZNIV DZHARADZHYAN, B252832

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC488773) v.

EXCLUSIVE MOTORCARS, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph Kalin, Judge. Affirmed.

Chris Campbell for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Turner Aubert & Friedman and Matthew C. Wolf for Defendants and Respondents.

**********

In this bailment case, plaintiff Azniv Dzharadzhyan sued defendants Karen Martirosyan, , and Exclusive Motorcars, Inc., doing business as Rick’s Auto Body & Paint, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. Plaintiff’s husband, Ovsep Sukunyan, left plaintiff’s 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air at defendants’ auto shop for minor repairs. While it was there, defendants’ shop was burglarized one night, and plaintiff’s car was stolen. Plaintiff seeks to recover $150,000 (the alleged value of the car) from defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground they had satisfied their duty of ordinary care, because at the time of the burglary, plaintiff’s car was secured behind a gated and locked perimeter fence, within a locked garage that was protected by an ADT security system. The trial court agreed, and granted defendants’ motion. On appeal, plaintiff urges that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether defendants satisfied their duty of care, reasoning that defendants could have done more to secure the car, by engaging the car’s “kill switches” that would have made it “impossible” to start the vehicle, and by storing the car key in a separate locked box. We affirm. FACTS The evidence in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment established the following undisputed facts: Defendants’ shop is secured by a perimeter fence with a locked gate. Arman Martirosyan, an owner and employee of the business with over 10 years of experience at the business, and experience with other auto repair shops, averred that “[d]uring the entire time that it has been in business, [defendants’ shop] has followed the industry custom and practice of securing vehicles overnight by use of a locked perimeter gate.” Within the perimeter are other structures which can be locked separately, including a garage-like paint booth, which has a rollup door that is kept locked before and after business hours with a heavy-duty padlock. The garage is also secured by an ADT alarm system. On March 10, 2012, plaintiff’s husband brought the 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air to defendants’ shop for cosmetic repairs. Mr. Sukunyan signed an estimate authorizing the