Nathanson v. Ruiz CA2/7

Filed 1/20/16 Nathanson v. Ruiz CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

RICHARD NATHANSON, B260470

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC098926) v.

RAFAEL RUIZ, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elia Weinbach, Judge. Reversed. Law Offices of Julia Sklar and Julia Sklar for Plaintiff and Appellant. Veatch Carlson and Peter H. Crossin for Defendants and Respondents.

_____________________________

Richard Nathanson sued Rafael and Romelia Ruiz for negligence and premises liability after a fire consumed a garage he rented from them. The trial court granted summary judgment in the Ruizes’s favor, and Nathanson appeals. We reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Nathanson lived in a detached garage belonging to the Ruizes that had been converted into a residence. In 2012, a fire broke out and destroyed the garage. Nathanson sued the Ruizes for negligence and premises liability. The Ruizes moved for summary judgment on the ground that Nathanson could not prove causation because there was no causal nexus between the fire and any act or omission on their part. The Ruizes’s separate statement of material facts contained four allegedly undisputed material facts: (1) Nathanson was a tenant of the garage owned by the Ruizes as of February 23, 2012; (2) on February 23, 2012, a fire broke out at the garage; (3) the Los Angeles City Fire Department investigated and concluded that the fire originated on the outside of the garage, but was not able to determine the actual cause of the fire; and (4) Nathanson was asleep when the fire started, and does not know what caused the fire. The Ruizes supported their third alleged fact, concerning the investigation into and the cause of the fire, with the deposition testimony and exhibits from the deposition of William Aaron, a captain of the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD). At deposition, Aaron testified that he had generated two reports concerning the fire. He had no independent recollection of the fire but knew from the reports he had been there. During the deposition, Aaron was asked about the statement in one of the reports that the origin of the fire was “exterior-exposed surface.” Defense counsel asked, “So we know from your report without any doubt that this fire started on the outside [of the garage], correct?” Aaron responded that the fire began on the outside of the residential garage. Counsel then asked, “If the fire was started by . . . electrical wiring inside or something to do with the structure itself like an unsafe structure, would that be in the report? Would it