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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 .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.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and 

Respondent.

B313461

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 18STCV00679)

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.

_________________________
2

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.)
3

The trial court then considered the scope of the duty, an 

analysis centering around the ameliorative measures a plaintiff 

contends a defendant should have taken to prevent the plaintiff’s 

injuries. (Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1214.) 

Ultimately, the trial court rejected those measures.

The record in this case clearly shows that in opposition to 

USC’s summary judgment motion, appellants proposed five 

specific ameliorative steps which, they contended, would have 

prevented the assault. We quote from that opposition: 

“(1) providing enough [Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)]

officers and/or [Apex Security Group, Inc. (Apex)] security guards

in the seating bowl to ‘maintain order, deter violent fights among 

the massive crowd of attendees, ensure the safety of attendees 

and discourage overconsumption of alcohol;’ (2) implementing

‘adequate security measures . . .’; (3) ensuring that security 

personnel in the seating bowl were aware of LAPD and Apex 

deployments; (4) ensuring that CSC staff members could directly 

communicate with LAPD and/or Apex; and (5) providing 

additional security personnel to the Family Section in light of 

prior complaints.”

In their appellate briefing, appellants inexplicably contend 

they “identified specific steps that Respondent and/or its hired 

agent, CSC, could have taken to prevent their injuries: (1) hiring 

staff members in the seating bowl that were authorized to enforce 

the Fan Code of Conduct, including the ejection of fans; 

(2) providing CSC employees deployed in the lower bowl with 

radios; (3) providing CSC employees deployed in the seating bowl 

with 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) timely 
4

escalating the verbal altercation involving Mr. Romero to LAPD 

and/or Apex; and (6) keeping Mr. Romero and the Assailants 

physically separated until LAPD and/or Apex arrived on-scene.” 

This is simply not accurate.

Having incorrectly listed the specific steps, appellants then 

proceed to argue that the burden of taking these steps was

minimal 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 address the trial court’s analysis of the 

five steps they actually proposed. This is true even 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 steps 

of “providing CSC employees deployed in the seating bowl with 

radios capable of direct communication with LAPD or 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, appellants contended USC 

should have taken the steps of “ensuring that security personnel 

in the seating bowl were aware of LAPD and Apex deployments 

[and] ensuring that CSC staff members could directly 

communicate with LAPD and/or Apex.” Appellants do not 

discuss, let alone identify any error, in the trial court’s analysis of 

these two steps.

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 594, 608–609.) 

Appellants have not in any way affirmatively demonstrated error 

in the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
5

Although not determinative of our decision to affirm, we 

note that to the extent appellants are contending on appeal that 

USC could be held liable for CSC’s failure to take ameliorative 

steps, a trial court has separately found that any breach of duty 

by CSC did not cause appellants’ injuries. We have separately 

affirmed that ruling. Thus, appellants’ argument concerning a 

nondelegable duty on USC’s part does not save this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Appellants to bear costs on 

appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

GRIMES, J.

VIRAMONTES, J.