Clear Channel Entertainment v. Sup. Ct
Filed 5/30/06 Clear Channel Entertainment v. Sup. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| CLEAR CHANNEL ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; PACIFICO PACULBA et al., Real Parties in Interest. | A113482 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-435070) |
BY THE COURT:*
Clear Channel Entertainment Television Holdings, Inc., and Bill Graham Presents, Inc., have filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging respondent trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment.
Real parties in interest Pacifico and Nerisa Paculba allege petitioners are responsible for the death of their son. They allege their son suffered a fatal asthma attack as a result of second-hand smoke while attending a concert at petitioners' entertainment venue, the Fillmore Theater. The Paculbas seek to hold petitioners liable under a premises liability theory.
Petitioners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they owed no duty to protect the Paculbas' son from the second-hand smoke and that the Paculbas could not establish causation. In opposing the motion for summary judgment, the Paculbas relied, in part, on a declaration from a doctor who opined smoke in the environment was a â€
