Gray•Duffy Successfully Defends Nightclub from Liability

January 2008

Kevin M. Cruz, of the Gray•Duffy Encino office, obtained a favorable ruling on a motion for summary judgment in a recent case involving a reported gang attack on two patrons of a nightclub in San Bernardino County.

Plaintiffs Sanchez and Medina allege that they, along with three of their relatives, arrived at defendant nightclub at around midnight on the evening of July 26, 2003. At one point plaintiffs were dancing out of the view of their relatives and were allegedly attacked by six or seven men who “looked like gang members.” Plaintiffs claimed they were severely beaten and that none of the security guards at the nightclub came to their aid. It was further alleged that the security guards picked up the unconscious plaintiff Sanchez and threw him out onto the asphalt parking lot where the party waited approximately 30 minutes for the nightclub to call an ambulance. When the ambulance did not arrive, the party took the severely injured Sanchez to the hospital down the street.

Plaintiff Sanchez was diagnosed as suffering a frontal lobe contusion and was reported to be in a coma for approximately three days. Since that time, plaintiff testified he continues to suffer headaches and memory loss. Plaintiff Medina alleged he suffered soft tissue injuries to his back and neck, and both parties claimed unspecified loss of earnings.

Plaintiffs sued the owners of the nightclub claiming (a) it negligently failed to provide adequate security and supervision for the plaintiff-patrons so as to permit plaintiffs to be attacked and beaten while they danced at this nightclub, and (b) employees of the nightclub negligently picked up the injured Sanchez from the dance floor, carried him outside, and “threw him out onto the parking lot without calling 911 or rendering any assistance or medical attention to him in spite of his dangerously injured state.” Upon answering the complaint, the nightclub owners filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against the independently contracted security company.

In the course of discovery Mr. Cruz sought repeatedly to take the deposition of plaintiff Medina, however, plaintiff Medina had relocated to Utah and refused to appear for deposition. Mr. Cruz then filed motions to compel which resulted in an award of sanctions in the amount of $711.30 against this plaintiff. On January 6, 2006, Mr. Cruz filed a motion for terminating, evidentiary and monetary sanctions against plaintiff Medina for disobeying the court’s order to appear at deposition on December 9, 2005, and for failure to pay $711.30 in sanctions. On February 2, 2006, the court granted this motion, dismissing the complaint as to plaintiff Medina. The order also barred plaintiff Medina from testifying in the remaining action, and issued additional sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $985.00

On March 9, 2006, Mr. Cruz filed a motion for summary judgment against the remaining action by plaintiff Sanchez. The motion argued that (a) plaintiff could not establish by nonspeculative evidence that any other security configuration would have prevented plaintiff’s injuries, and (b) the evidence actually showed that plaintiff’s own brother took him out of the nightclub, and there was no evidence that any delay in calling emergency services on the part of the nightclub contributed to plaintiff’s injuries.

On May 31, 2006, the court agreed with Mr. Cruz on all issues and granted the motion. The court found that there was no admissible, non-speculative evidence of any causal connection between the conduct of the nightclub and the injuries sustained by plaintiff. Thus, judgment was rendered in favor of defendant nightclub on all causes of action, including an award of costs.

On February 26, 2007, plaintiff Reynaldo Sanchez appealed the trial court’s decision with the Fourth Appellate District Division Two. On January 31, 2008, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding that plaintiff failed to establish the elements of foreseeability and causation.

Reynaldo Sanchez, et al. v. FC & EC, Inc., San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SVCSS117436; 2008 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 866.

Please Note: This article is necessarily general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice with respect to any particular case. Readers should consult with an attorney before taking any action affecting their interests.