Cohen v. Chandra Hospitality CA4/1

── Cohen v. Chandra Hospitality CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 Cohen v. Chandra Hospitality CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GLENN COHEN, D087166 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. CVBL2200106) CHANDRA HOSPITALITY, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Manuel Bustamente, Judge. Affirmed. Saroian Law, Ara Saroian; EAccidents, Tal Hassid; Law Office of Maximilian Lee and Maximilian Lee for Plaintiff and Appellant. Horvitz & Levy, Scott P. Dixler, Jason Y. Siu; Law Offices of Schneider, Hosmer & Ackert and Darren P. Johnson for Defendant and Respondent. On a scorching hot summer day in the desert, Glenn Cohen burned his feet walking barefoot on the cement surface around a hotel pool owned by defendant Chandra Hospitality, LLC. Cohen argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s summary judgment motion after determining that the pool deck’s allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious, and that defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the condition. Cohen also contends the court abused its discretion in sustaining defendant’s objections to one of its expert affidavits. We conclude Cohen has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining defendant’s evidentiary objections. We also conclude that the court did not err in granting summary judgment on the ground that the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious. We need not and do not decide whether the court’s other ground for granting summary judgment was erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Pool Incident In August 2021, Cohen and his family members stayed at a hotel in Blythe, California. Summer temperatures in Blythe often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and on the day Cohen and his family went to the hotel pool in the early afternoon, it was around 113 degrees outside. Cohen wore a swimsuit, tank top, ankle socks, and sneakers to the pool. After entering the pool area, he removed his shoes and socks, stood and walked around the pool barefoot for some amount of time, and then jumped in the pool. At some point he exited the pool, walked barefoot about 30 feet into the hotel to use the restroom, and then walked back and got into the pool again. When Cohen eventually got out of the pool again and walked to where his wife was sitting, his son mentioned to him that “the cement is hot” and he should check his feet. Cohen sat down to look at the bottoms of his feet, and he saw that his skin “had disintegrated[.]” Cohen testified in a deposition that he knew it was hot outside that day, but he did not feel that the cement was hot, nor did he “have a sense that the cement around the pool would be hot that day” before he burned his 2 feet. He said he did not wear shoes to go to the hotel restroom because “there was no need” for him to wear shoes. B. Complaint and Answer Cohen sued defendant in August 2022, alleging premises liability and negligence. He asserted that defendant breached its duty to him “by failing to address, alleviate, remove and/or remedy the dangerous condition or activity on [their] premises, and by failing to warn their guests . . . of such dangerous condition.” Defendant answered