Alicia Chomi v. 12945-13225 Peyton Drive Holding, LLC et al

TENTATIVE RULING FOR JULY 20, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Alicia Chomi v. 12945-13225 Peyton Drive Holding, LLC et al – CIVRS2400397 Motion: Motion for Summary Judgment Movant: Defendants Papao, Inc. dba Fukuoka Hakata Ramen (erroneously sued and served herein as Prakonkit Kontong, an individual and doing business as Fukuoka Hakata Ramen and Praiya Noppharattikanon, an individual and doing business as Fukuoka Hakata Ramen) Respondent: Plaintiff Alicia Chomi (No Opposition) Ruling: Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Evidentiary basis: Complaint, Answer; motion for summary judgment together with the declaration of Jason P. Tortorici, Esq., and exhibits including discovery responses, the deposition of Plaintiff and the declaration of Prakonkit Kontong, the CEO of Fukuoka Hakata Ramen; separate statement of material facts; notice of non-opposition; Uncontested Material Facts: 1-19.

Defendants Papao, Inc. dba Fukuoka Hakata Ramen to provide Order and give notice. ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is an unopposed motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Papao, Inc. dba Fukuoka Hakata Ramen (erroneously sued and served herein as Prakonkit Kontong, an individual and doing business as Fukuoka Hakata Ramen and Praiya Noppharattikanon, an individual and doing business as Fukuoka Hakata Ramen).

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) The duty of a person who owns, leases, occupies or controls real property is under a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises safe and may be liable under a theory of premises liability. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205; Civil Code, section 1714, subd. (a).) “Premises liability is a form of negligence based on the holding in Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, and is described as follows: The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” 1 (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.)

The elements for premises liability are: (a) the defendant was owner, occupier or lessor of premises; (b) the defendant was negligent in the use, maintenance, and/or management of the premises, and (c) negligence was the cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to plaintiff. (Id.) To prove an unsafe condition of property, plaintiff must prove: (1) a condition on the premises

1 To establish a general negligence claim, a plaintiff needs to prove: (1) legal duty owed to them; (2) breach of that duty by defendant; (3) causation; and (4) damages to plaintiff. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) To establish the element of actual causation, it must be shown that the defendant’s act, or omission to act, was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. (Padilla v. Rodas (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 742, 752, citing to Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 778.) “The existence of a legal duty to use reasonable care in a particular factual situation is a question of law for the court to decide.” (Vazquez v. Residential Invs., Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269, 278.)

created an unreasonable risk of harm; (2) defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about it; and (3) defendant failed to repair the condition, protect against harm from the condition, or give adequate warning of the condition. (CACI Number 1003; see also Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)

“[A] defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control. Where the absence of ownership, possession, or control has been unequivocally established, summary judgment is proper. [Citations.]” (See Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134.)

Here, from the evidence submitted by the lease and the testimony of the Plaintiff and her discovery responses, Defendants did not have control over the steps on which the Plaintiff fell. The CEO’s declaration read: the steps located outdoors at 13089 Peyton Drive in front of Unit A, which used to be occupied by an AT&T store and are located approximately 95 feet from the entrance of FH Ramen. The lease only gave FH Ramen possession and control over 13089-F, a 1475 square foot suite. The steps fell under the “common areas’ pursuant to the lease (UMF, ¶ 15) and the common areas was subject to the exclusive control, custody and management of Landlord. (UMF, ¶¶ 16, 18-19.)

Additionally, Kontong stated s/he had has never owned the land or structures where 13089 Peyton Drive is located; had nothing to do with the design, creation, construction, maintenance, or installation of the steps depicted in Exhibit C where plaintiff Alicia Chomi alleges that she fell; and did not know of any defects or danger in the area depicted in Exhibit C. (Kontong Decl., ¶¶ 16-18.)

For these reasons, which are also unopposed, the Court grants summary judgment.

Dated: July 20, 2026

____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson

4