Court Opinion

ID: 9390847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 19:02:36.682174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:37.596356
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 .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.,                                         B313461

         Plaintiffs and Appellants,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. 18STCV00679)
         v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA,

     Defendant and
Respondent.

     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.

                               _________________________
      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.)

                               2
       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

                                 3
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.

                                  4
       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.

                                5