Azevedo v. Bonds Land Investment Co.

Filed 6/26/06 Azevedo v. Bonds Land Investment Co. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

After a jewelry store robbery, plaintiffs[1] brought this action against the owner, property manager, and security service of the building in which the jewelry store was located, alleging causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium. They appeal after the trial court granted motions for summary judgment brought by defendants Bonds Land Investment Co., Ltd., CB Richard Ellis, Inc., and CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (collectively CBRE); and by defendant Pinkerton's Inc. (Pinkerton). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Azevedo Jewelers had a place of business on the third floor of a building on Post Street in San Francisco. Azevedo and Reese worked at the store. Bonds Land Investment Co., Ltd., owned the property; CB Richard Ellis, Inc., and CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc., acted as the property manager; and Pinkerton had been hired to provide security services at the building.

There is no dispute as to many of the relevant facts. In response to CBRE's statement of undisputed facts, plaintiffs admitted the following: The front door of Azevedo Jewelers' showroom was kept locked during business hours. Public access to the showroom was limited, and the store had a security system that included four video cameras, an intercom system tied to a door buzzer, and hand alarms. Customers were identified before being allowed into the showroom. On September 12, 2002, when Reese was alone in the store, the doorbell rang. She saw a tall African-American man in brown clothes, wearing a United Parcel Service (UPS) visor. He told her his name was Michael Walker, that he was in the building training a new employee, and that he was interested in buying a two-carat stone. When Azevedo returned to the store, Reese told him about the visitor, mentioning that she felt uncomfortable about the incident.[2] Walker called the store 45 minutes later and spoke with Azevedo, who told him he did not keep diamonds of that size in the store and that he would call him when the diamonds were available. Walker gave Azevedo a telephone number. When Azevedo called the number, he found it had been disconnected. Azevedo tried unsuccessfully to find out from UPS whether Walker was training in the area. The next morning, Reese opened the showroom door.[3] Two men dressed as UPS employees entered and robbed the store. In the process, both Reese and Azevedo were tied up.

In response to Pinkerton's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs agreed the following facts were undisputed: The building on Post Street was open to the public, and included various kinds of retailers, including jewelry stores, nail salons, travel agencies, and tailors. Azevedo Jewelers was located on the third floor of the building. A guard provided by Pinkerton was responsible for being in the building lobby on week days and enforcing sign in and sign out rules, under which package delivery persons were required to sign in and out. Azevedo Jewelers had four security cameras, two inside the store and two outside the store. On September 13, 2002 (the day after Walker first went to the Azevedo showroom as described above), Reese was inside Azevedo Jewelers' suite. She opened the door to find someone who appeared to be a UPS delivery man holding packages addressed to Azevedo Jewelers.[4] He shoved her back in the store and began the robbery. Walker came into the suite and used a stun gun on Reese. Azevedo was beaten and robbed. The person responsible for building maintenance and certain safety matters, Al Smith, encountered two men who looked like UPS delivery men near the elevators on the third floor and exchanged greetings with them. Smith testified that the two men looked like UPS delivery men, and he was not suspicious of them.

Pinkerton and CBRE moved separately for summary judgment.[5] The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment. In doing so, it concluded that Pinkerton and CBRE owed a duty to plaintiffs because the robbery was foreseeable and that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether they breached their duty, but that there was no triable issue of fact as to whether their conduct caused plaintiffs' injuries. The court entered judgment for Pinkerton and CBRE.[6] This timely appeal ensued.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards on Summary Judgment

The standards we apply when reviewing a trial court decision granting summary judgment are well settled. â€