Filed 4/28/23 Romero v. University of S outhern 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinio n has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115

.

IN THE COURT OF A PPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

ENRIQUE ROMERO et al

.,

Plaintiff s and Appellants

,

v.

UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent

. B 313461

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18 STCV0067 9 )

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

Blair & Ramirez, Oscar Ramirez, Mat thew P. Blair and Kirill Lavinski for Plaintiffs and Appellant s

.
M anning & Kass

, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Je ffrey M. Lenkov and Steven J. Renick for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________2 After appellant Enr ique Romero was injur ed 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), t he Los Angeles R ams (Rams) an d the University of Southern California (USC), alleging causes of action for negligence, premises liability and rel ated ancillary torts. All three defendants moved for summary judgment

. The trial co urt heard and granted the Rams’ and
CSC’ s m otions, prima rily on the ground that any breach of duty by the Rams or CSC was not a substantial fact or in causing appellants’ injuries. Appellants have appealed separately from that judgment. The trial court de nied USC’s motion without prejudice due to defective ser vice.
USC’s summary judgment motion was subsequently heard
and granted by a different judge

, e ssentially o n the ground that USC did not have a duty to take the ameliorative steps proposed by appellants. Appellants now appeal from that judgm en t , which

we a ffirm.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In ruling on USC’s summary judgment motion, the trial court at least implicitly recogniz ed that a special relationship existed between USC, which manages and controls the Coliseum

, and visitors to the Colise um , such as the Romeros. Such a relationship give s 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 .)3 The trial court then considered the scope of the duty, an analysis centering around the a meliorative measures a plaintiff
contends a defendant should have taken to prevent the plaintiff’s injuries. ( Cast aneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1214. ) Ultimately, the trial court rejected those measures.
The record in this ca se cl early shows t hat in opposition to
USC’s summary judgment motion, appellants proposed five specific ameliorative steps which

, they c ontended

, wou ld have prevented the assault. We quote from that opposition:

“ (1) providing enough [Los Angeles Police Departm e nt ( LAPD )]

o fficers and/or [Apex Security Group, Inc. ( Apex )] security guards in the seating bowl to ‘maintain order, deter vi olent fights among the massive crowd of attendees, ensure the safety of attende es and discourage overconsumption of alcohol;’ (2) imp lementin g ‘adequate security measures . . .’; (3) ensuring that security personnel in the seating bowl were aware of LAPD a nd Apex deployments; (4) ensuring that CSC staff members could directly
communi cate with LAPD and/or Apex; and (5) providing
addi tion al secur i ty personnel to the Family Section in light of prior complaints.” In their appellate briefing, appell ants inexplicably contend they “identified specific steps that Respondent and/o r its hired agent, CSC, could have taken to preven t their inju ries: (1) h ir ing staff members in the seating bowl that were authorized to enforce the Fan Code of Conduct, includi ng the ejection of fans; (2) providing CSC employees deployed in the lower bowl with radios; (3) providing CSC employees deployed in the seat ing bowl
wi th radios capable of direct communication with LAPD or Apex; (4) providing CSC employees in the seating bowl with information about LAPD and/or Apex deployments; (5) timely4

escalating the verbal altercation involving Mr. Romero to LA PD
and/o r Ap ex; and (6) k eeping Mr. Romero and the Assailants physically separated until LAPD and/or Apex arrived on

- scene. ” This is simply not accurate. Having incorrectly l isted the specific steps, appellants then proceed to argue that the burden of ta king the se s teps was
mi ni mal compared to the risk of harm to fans, and there would be no negative consequences to the community of requiring USC to take these steps. Appellants do not addres s the trial court’s analysis of the five steps they actually prop osed. T his is true eve n though there is a small overlap in the two sets of steps

. In their opening brief on appeal, appellants contend USC should have taken the ste ps of “ providing CSC employees deployed in the seating bowl with radios capable of direct commun ic atio n with LAPD o r Apex [and] providing CSC employees in the seating bowl with information about LAPD and/or Apex deployments.” In their opposition to
USC ’ s motion for summary judgment , appellan ts contended USC should have taken the steps of “ensuring th at s ec urity per so nnel in the seating bowl were aware of LAPD and Apex deployments [and] ensuring that CSC staff memb ers could directly communicate with LAPD and/or Apex.” Appellants d o not discuss, let alone identify any error, in the trial court’s anal ys is o f
these two s teps. The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant's burden to affirmatively demonstrate

error. ( Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 5 94 , 60 8

– 609.) Ap pe llant s ha ve not in any way affirmatively demonstrated error in the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.5 Although not determinative of our decisio n to affirm, we
note that to the extent appellants are contending on ap pe al that
USC c ou ld be held liable for CSC’s failure to take amel iorative steps, a trial court has separately found that any breach of duty by CSC did not cause appellants’ inj uries. We have separately affirmed that ruling. Thus, appellants’ ar gument c on cern ing a
nonde le gable duty on USC’s part does not save this appeal.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Appellants to bear costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE P UBLISHED IN THE O FFICIAL REPORTS

S TRAT T ON

, P. J.

We co ncur:

GRIMES

, J.

VI RA MONT ES , J

.