Lujan v. Estate of Rosario

Opinion

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

6 SHAWN MICHAEL LUJAN, 7

8 Plaintiff,

9 V.

10 ESTATE OF ISABEL CRUZ SANTOS 11 ROSARIO and ROSA CRUZ PEREZ,

12 Defendants. CIVIL CASE NO. CV0505-12 13

14 BARBARA L. CAMACHO,

15 Plaintiff, 16 DECISION AND ORDER V. 17 NICOLE ANN CHARGUALAF, as 18 ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 19 ISABEL CRUZ SANTOS ROSARIO, deceased, and ROSA CRUZ PEREZ, 20 Defendants. 21

22 ESTATE OF ISABEL CRUZ SANTOS 23 ROSARIO, 24 Third Party Plaintiff, 25 V. 26 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, 27 Third Party Defendant. 28 Decision and Order Lujan v. Estate of Rosario, Civil Case No. CV 0505-12

INTRODUCTION 2 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 16th day of August, 3 2013, for hearing on Third Party Defendant Government of Guam's ("the Government's") 4

5 Motion for Summary Judgment. Assistant Attorney General Robert Weinberg represented the

6 Government, Attorney Brooke Wright of Torres Law Group represented Defendant/Third Party 7 Plaintiff Estate of Isabel Cruz Santos Rosario's ("the Estate") with Attorney Phillip Torres on 8 the brief, and Attorney Michael Berman of Berman O'Connor and Mann represented Plaintiff 9 Shawn Michael Lujan. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Government's 10

II Motion for Summary Judgment.

I2 I. Background I3

I4 This case arises out of injuries suffered as a result of a tree limb that broke from a tree

IS and fell onto a public street during a Liberation Day parade. The Estate Defendants are alleged I6 by the Plaintiff to be the owners of the land on which the tree was located. The Estate brought a I7 third party claim against the Government, alleging that the tree was at least partially on I8 Government land. The Government has moved for summary judgment. I9

20 II. Summary Judgment Standard 2I Summary judgment should be granted when no material facts are in dispute and the 22

23 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. lizuka Corporation v. Kawasho

24 International (Guam), Inc, 1997 Guam 10 ~ 7. The initial burden is on the moving party and the 25 court must review the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. !d. at ~ 8. 26 However, if the movant can demonstrate that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, the 27

non-movant here, the Estate cannot merely rely upon the assertions contained in the 28

Page 2 of4 {)ecision and Order Lujan v. Estate of Rosario, Civil Case No. CV 0505-12

complaint, but must produce significant probative evidence showing that there is a genuinely

2 disputed issue of material fact that must be determined at trial. !d.

3 III. Legal Standard 4

5 "[I]n order to be liable for injury caused by a harmful or dangerous condition on a

6 property, there must be negligence on the part of the property owner itself." Henderson v. 7 McDonald's Intern. Property Co., Ltd., 2006 Guam 2 ~ 23. In order to establish that a property 8 owner was negligent, the plaintiff must show that the property owner breached its duty of care 9 of reasonable maintenance of premises by proving "either that the property owner caused the 10

II dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive knowledge of such condition." Id. at ~ 21. If

I2 the plaintiff cannot show that the owner caused the condition, and instead attempts to show I3 actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, the plaintiff must additionally 14 show that the owner had knowledge of the condition "in sufficient time to correct it." Id. at~ 23. 15

I6 The Estate has never claimed that the Government actively caused any hazardous

I7 condition on the property. Thus, it remains to the Estate to show that a genuine question remains I8 as to the Government's actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition. I9

20 IV. Estate's Evidentiary Showing

2I The Estate has not provided any evidence beyond the bare allegations in its pleadings 22 demonstrating to the Court's satisfaction that, as to the Government, there remains any genuine 23 issue of material fact to be tried in this case. The Estate has pointed to no evidence - no 24

25 deposition testimony, no affidavits, no declaration, no exhibits, no discovery answers rmsmg

26 even the slightest suggestion of actual or constructive knowledge on the part of the Government 27 of a hazardous condition on its property. In light of the Estate's insufficient evidentiary 28

Page3 of4 Decision and Order Lujan v. Estate of Rosario, Civil Case No. CV 0505-12

showing, the Court concludes that the Government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on

2 its liability in this case.

3 CONCLUSION 4

5 For the reasons set forth above, the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment is

6 GRANTED. 7

8 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of August, 2013. 9

lO

11 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13

Page 4 of4