Santiago v. Chavez CA2/6

Filed 12/3/15 Santiago v. Chavez CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

PEDRO LOPEZ SANTIAGO et al., 2d Civil No. B259427 (Super. Ct. No. 1390566) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

ISIDRO CHAVEZ et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Pedro Lopez, Jr., (Lopez) was stabbed to death on property owned by Isidro and Maria Chavez (respondents). Lopez's parents, Pedro Lopez Santiago and Guadalupe Ramirez (appellants), sued respondents for negligence, premises liability, and wrongful death. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, and appellants appeal from that judgment. We affirm. BACKGROUND Respondents own a four-unit apartment building in Santa Maria (the property). Each unit is occupied by tenants who pay rent to respondents. On March 5, 2010, M.P. and H.A. lived in unit "D" with their mother. At about 10:00 p.m. that night, Lopez was stabbed to death in the carport of unit D by Christian Chavez,1 a member of the West Park Gang. The operative complaint

1 Although Chavez and respondents share a last name, they are not related.

alleged that M.P. and H.A. were members of the same gang, invited Chavez over that night "for one of their frequently occurring parties," and "stood next to Chavez" while he committed the crime. M.P. had also allegedly been stabbed in a prior incident and involved in another prior stabbing, while Lopez was not affiliated with any gang and "had been jogging by the building while he stopped to visit a tenant at the property when he was violently stabbed to death . . . ." The complaint also alleged that other tenants had previously complained to respondents about "loud drunken parties several nights per week in the carport and driveway area [of unit D], gang member activity, police raids, drug use on the premises, sex in public and acts of violence." Respondents purportedly "did nothing to prevent this illegal and dangerous activity from continuing" by, for example, evicting M.P. or H.A., ordering them "to stop engaging in violent and illegal conduct," "post[ing] signage restricting the behavior" or "put up any lighting to deter, and did not call the police to stop the illegal conduct." Respondents also allegedly knew about two prior police "raid[s]" on the he property "just weeks prior to the Lopez murder as well as several other crimes at [unit D] including drug arrests, sexual assault, drunk in public, theft, and resisting arrest." Appellants sought to hold respondents liable for the damages they suffered as a result of Lopez's death on the grounds that (1)"further criminal and/or dangerous activities" on the property were foreseeable to respondents such that they owed a duty to prevent such activities; and (2) Lopez's death was caused by the breach of that duty. In moving for summary judgment, respondents each declared under oath that prior to the stabbing incident they had no knowledge of any criminal activity on the property, including illegal drug usage in the common areas or "loud drunken parties" or "any prior acts of physical violence on th[e] property." Respondents also said they had no prior knowledge of Chavez or Lopez or of any disturbance or disagreement between them and/or the occupants of unit D. In opposing summary judgment, appellants submitted a declaration from private investigator Hector Garcia along with a report summarizing interviews