GUZMAN vs CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”(Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co.(2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)“That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon.”(Id.) Further, “the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his 24CV087443: GUZMAN vs CITY OF OAKLAND, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication CRS# 249818024850 in Department 518 burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”(Id.)“[T]he opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”(Id.)“There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”(Id.)

Discussion

California Government Code§815 provides that “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person” except as provided by statute.

Further,California Government Code§835provides, “Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury wasproximately causedby the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition underSection 835.2a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”

The City asserts that the condition of the pavement where Plaintiff fell was a trivial defect of which they did not have actual or constructive notice.

Trivial Defect

“The decision whether a crack or other defect in a walkway is dangerous does not rest entirely on the size of the depression. Although the size of a crack or pothole is a pivotal factor in the determination, a tape measure alone cannot be used to determine whether the defect was trivial. Instead, the court should determine whether there existed any circumstances surrounding the accident which might have rendered the defect more dangerous than its mere abstract depth would indicate. Aside from the size of the defect, the court should consider whether the walkway had any broken pieces or jagged edges and other conditions of the walkway surrounding the defect, such as whether there was debris, grease or water concealing the defect, as well as whether the accident occurred at night in an unlighted area or some other condition obstructed a pedestrian's view of the defect.

The court should also consider the weather at the time of the accident, plaintiff's knowledge of the conditions in the area, whether the defect has caused other accidents, and whether circumstances might either have aggravated or mitigated the risk of injury.” (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 566–567.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV087443: GUZMAN vs CITY OF OAKLAND, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication CRS# 249818024850 in Department 518 Here, Plaintiff fell in front of 5636 Florence Terrace in Oakland on or about August 12, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that she fell due to a three-inch depression whereas the City characterizes the fall occurring at or near a 1.5-inch dent. The City contends that the condition of the pavement was trivial and thus not dangerous. However, the evidence presented by the City does not clearly support that the depression was 1.5 inches deep. (UMF # 10.)

The deposition is Krisandra Guzman does not mention the depth or any measurements other than to say that it was, “about four inches wide” (UMF # 10, O’Brien Decl. ex. B, Guzman Depo. pp. 27:25 – 28:1 – 3.) The deposition photo exhibits also do not support the notion that the hole or depression was trivial or only 1.5 inches deep as the photos are not taken by experts and do not clearly depict any clear measurements. (UMF # 10, O’Brien decl., exs. C 1- 4.)

Plaintiff asserts, in her declaration, that the hole was “was approximately 3 inches on the day of the incident” which is supported by photographs, though it is unclear when these photographs were taken or that anyone measured the hole accurately at or near the time of the fall. (Guzman Decl. ¶ 12, Gill Decl. ex. 1A.) Plaintiff further asserts that the dangerous condition blended into the surrounding pavement because the materials were similar in color and appearance and were not readily apparent to Plaintiff. (UMF # 4, Guzman Decl. ¶¶ 6 – 7.)

Most tellingly, the City’s own PMQ testifies that, “From a photograph that was submitted, it cannot be determined the exact dimensions of what is being described as a defect.” (Gill Declaration, ex. 1-B, White Depo. p. 37:8 – 10.)

The Court is not satisfied that the condition where Plaintiff fell can be described as trivial as no evidence submitted by either party clearly supports the size of the hole or depression. At a minimum, there is a triable issue of material fact concerning the size of the “defect”. Thus, summary adjudication based on the dangerous condition being trivial is DENIED.

Notice

“A public entity has actual notice of a dangerous condition if it has (1) actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and (2) knew or should have known of its dangerous character. To establish actual notice, there must be some evidence the public entity's employees had knowledge of the particular dangerous condition in question. A public entity will be charged with constructive notice of a dangerous condition only if (1) the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient period of time before the plaintiff's injury, and (2) it was sufficiently obvious that the entity acted negligently in not discovering and repairing it.

Thus, constructive notice has two threshold elements. A plaintiff must establish that the dangerous condition has existed for a sufficient period of time and that the dangerous condition was obvious.” (Sargenti v. City of Long Beach (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 702, 710 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted.].)

The City claims that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous pavement conditions that caused Plaintiff’s fall. (UMF # 7 – 8.) Lee White, a senior construction supervisor in the paving and sidewalk division of the Department of Transportation states, “I

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV087443: GUZMAN vs CITY OF OAKLAND, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication CRS# 249818024850 in Department 518 have reviewed the results of searches of the CityWorks system for any Service Request or Work Order pertaining to the road, curb, or gutter adjacent to 5636 Florence Terrace in Oakland. Based upon my review of the CityWorks system, the City received no complaints concerning the area prior to the August 12, 2023, fall at issue here.” (UMF # 7, White Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4- 6.)

In contrast, Plaintiff asserts that the City was on notice of the ongoing pavement deterioration issues on this very street. (AMF # 4.) Plaintiff produces copies of several CityWorks Service Requests. (AMF #4, Gill Depo. exs. 1-C – 1-F.) The exhibits show requests for pothole repair in 2017 – 2019, none of which were in front of 5636 Florence Terrace. Rather, the repairs were approximately 72 to 79 feet from where Plaintiff fell. Plaintiffs assert that these service requests put the City on notice as to the dangerous conditions on Florence Terrace and thus provide actual or constructive notice of the hole that caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

However, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that a few complaints about potholes in the 72 to 79 feet from the actual location that were made 5 to 7 years before the accident somehow put the City on notice of the particular condition at issue. Further, the City has shown that no complaints were issued regarding the area adjacent to 5636 Florence Terrace.

No facts show how long the hole existed at 5636 Florence Terrence prior to Plaintiff’s fall. Plaintiff herself notes that the dangerous condition blended into the surrounding area and she herself did not notice the hole on the day of the accident. (UMF # 4, Guzman Decl. ¶¶ 6 – 7.)

None of the evidence presented supports the notion that the City received actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Because there are no facts showing that the City knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed which foreseeably could have caused Plaintiff’s injury, there is no triable issue of material fact as to whether the City received notice of the dangerous condition at issue.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant City of Oakland’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on lack of actual or constructive notice to the City regarding the dangerous condition.

The parties are reminded that the Court conducts all hearings on motions for summary judgement or summary adjudication in person. Thus, if either party contests the tentative ruling, all parties are directed to appear in Department 518 at 2:30 p.m.

---

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV087443: GUZMAN vs CITY OF OAKLAND, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication CRS# 249818024850 in Department 518

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)