Court Opinion

ID: 9729221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:29:28.51523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:56.161729
License: Public Domain

PARAS, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I have joined in the lead opinion and in its reasoning, but wish to point out a supplemental matter in connection with the comments contained in the last paragraph of section 2 thereof.
Two motions for summary judgment were filed concurrently, one by defendant Grupe Development Company (Grupe) and the second by defendant Claude C. Wood Company (Wood). Both were heard and granted at the same time. Grupe was the owner of the property, having purchased it from Westmont Development Company sometime after the agreement was made for the property’s use by Wood. The Grupe motion was supported by two declarations of Douglas Unruh, a company officer, in which he expressly states that no permission was given to plaintiff to enter the property, and Grupe knew of no dangerous condition of the *914property before plaintiff’s injury. Also he disavows any knowledge by Grupe that the property was being used by motorcycle riders for recreational purposes before the accident. The Wood motion is supported by two declarations of H. E. Baker, a company officer, one of which states that Wood did not invite plaintiff to enter the property and did not know he was using it for recreational purposes.
The Wood motion states that it is based upon its own points and authorities as well as the points and authorities offered in support of the Grupe motion. But it does not state that it is based upon the declarations which support the Grupe motion, and thus does not establish the exclusiveness of Wood’s possession as against plaintiff. If the Unruh declarations h^d been incorporated (assuming no factual contradiction), that exclusiveness would have been established, for Unruh clearly states that Grupe gaye no permission to plaintiff to be on the property, or to any third person except Wood; since Wood also negates any such permission to plaintiff, the declarations of both, considered together, establish that Wood’s right t© occupy was exclusive as against plaintiff who had no such right at all. ,,,
I point out the foregoing in order perhaps to shorten these proceedings, if the totality • of the facts is indeed as contained in the referenced declarations. Qbviously a further motion for summary judgment by Wood containing the missing information, unopposed (like the one before us) by pontradictory factual matter, will result in a resolution of the case without trial.