Romero v. University of Southern California CA2/8

Filed 4/28/23 Romero v. University of Southern California CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 .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

ENRIQUE ROMERO et al., B313461

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18STCV00679) v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kevin C. Brazile, Judge. Affirmed.

Blair & Ramirez, Oscar Ramirez, Matthew P. Blair and Kirill Lavinski for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Jeffrey M. Lenkov and Steven J. Renick for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

After appellant Enrique Romero was injured by fellow fans near the end of a Los Angeles Rams football game held in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (Coliseum), Enrique, his wife and two daughters (appellants) brought this action against Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), the Los Angeles Rams (Rams) and the University of Southern California (USC), alleging causes of action for negligence, premises liability and related ancillary torts. All three defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court heard and granted the Rams’ and CSC’s motions, primarily on the ground that any breach of duty by the Rams or CSC was not a substantial factor in causing appellants’ injuries. Appellants have appealed separately from that judgment. The trial court denied USC’s motion without prejudice due to defective service. USC’s summary judgment motion was subsequently heard and granted by a different judge, essentially on the ground that USC did not have a duty to take the ameliorative steps proposed by appellants. Appellants now appeal from that judgment, which we affirm. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In ruling on USC’s summary judgment motion, the trial court at least implicitly recognized that a special relationship existed between USC, which manages and controls the Coliseum, and visitors to the Coliseum, such as the Romeros. Such a relationship gives rise to a duty. (See Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 236; Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 214.)