Kyles v. Great Oaks Interests
Filed 2/16/07 Kyles v. Great Oaks Interests CA6
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTHAPPELLATE DISTRICT
| KIMBERLY KYLES et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
GREAT OAKS INTERESTS et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
| H028774 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV803869)
|
Appellants Kimberly Kyles (Kyles), individuallyand as guardian ad litem of her minor son, Kaelin Adams-Kyles (Kaelin), andKaelin's father, Ezell Adams (Adams; hereafter collectively Plaintiffs), suedrespondents Great Oaks Properties (Great Oaks), Ventana Property Services, Inc.(Ventana), and others for personal injuries and other injuries. Plaintiffslived in a single-family home adjacent to the Comstock Apartments (Apartments)in Mountain View. Great Oaks owned the Apartments and Ventana managed theapartment complex. Plaintiffs allege Great Oaks and Ventana negligently managedthe garbage areas of the Apartments and that their negligence caused a clowderof cats to gather and feed on the garbage. After feasting on what Plaintiffs'expert described as an â€
| Description | Appellants, sued respondents (Great Oaks), (Ventana), and others for personal injuries and other injuries. Plaintiffs lived in a single family home adjacent to the Comstock Apartments (Apartments)in Mountain View. Great Oaks owned the Apartments and Ventana managed the apartment complex. Plaintiffs allege Great Oaks and Ventana negligently managedthe garbage areas of the Apartments and that their negligence caused a clowder of cats to gather and feed on the garbage. After feasting on what Plaintiffs'expert described as an "unlimited 24 hour a day smorgasbord, "the cats hopped the fences between the Apartments and Plaintiffs' backyard and entered Plaintiffs' yard. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Great Oaks and Ventana's negligence, Kaelin contracted cat scratch disease. They also claim the presence of the large number of cats was a nuisance. The trial court granted Great Oaks and Ventan's motion for summary judgment of Plaintiffs' negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and nuisance causes of action. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the court erred in finding no duty with regard to two of the causes of action and that the court erred in concluding there was no causation with regard to all of the causes of action. Court conclude that the court properly granted summary adjudication of all of the causes of action based on Kaelin's personal injury claims since Plaintiffs cannot prove that Kaelin's illness was caused by Great Oaks and Ventana's conduct. However, court conclude that the nuisance cause of action based on the alleged presence of large numbers of cats on Plaintiffs' property (but not Kaelin's personal injuries) survived summary adjudication. |
| Rating |
