TC Nevada v. Hernandez CA2/5

── TC Nevada v. Hernandez CA2/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 TC Nevada v. Hernandez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE TC NEVADA, LLC et al., B338694 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 22STCV02323) LUZ ELENA HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne Hwang, Judge. Affirmed. The Bucklin Law Firm and Stephen L. Bucklin for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Ernest Slome, Daniel R. Velladao and Patrick J. McCormick for Defendants and Respondents. __________________________  INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs and appellants TC Nevada, LLC and TLC Luxury, LLC sued defendant and respondent Luz Hernandez and others after a fire damaged plaintiffs’ luxury buses. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of dismissal following an order granting summary judgment in favor of Hernandez.1 Plaintiffs contend Hernandez made an insufficient showing to shift the burden of proof on summary judgment. Alternatively, plaintiffs contend that they have shown material issues of fact precluding summary judgment. Hernandez contends that after she met her initial burden by showing plaintiffs reasonably cannot be expected to establish one or more elements of their negligence claim, plaintiffs failed to provide evidence raising a material factual issue as to duty and breach, and therefore summary judgment was warranted. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background This lawsuit concerns two adjacent commercial properties in Compton, California. Hernandez’s property is occupied by the business H&H Pallets, Inc. (H&H), co-owned by Hernandez and her son, that buys and sells pallets.2 Plaintiffs stored luxury 1 None of the other defendants were involved in the summary judgment motion at issue on this appeal. 2 Neither H&H nor Hernandez’s son was a party the motion for summary judgment or is a party to this appeal. 2 buses on a commercial property adjacent to H&H. On February 26, 2021, a fire started in an alleyway, eventually spreading to H&H and then to adjacent property, where the fire damaged or destroyed plaintiffs’ luxury buses. The initial cause of the fire is undetermined, but it is undisputed that the fire started in the alley and not on Hernandez’s property. B. Procedural History In January 2022, plaintiffs filed suit against Hernandez and others, alleging claims of negligence and negligence per se, based on the theory that Hernandez’s improper storage of pallets, in violation of unidentified statutes, ordinances, or laws, increased the risk of harm and proximately caused the fire damage to the buses. Hernandez served plaintiffs with form and special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. In relevant part, plaintiffs failed to give any substantive responses to Hernandez’s discovery requests about facts supporting plaintiffs’ contentions that Hernandez’s negligence in storing propane tanks and pallets on her property proximately caused plaintiffs’ ten luxury buses to be destroyed by the fire, instead repeatedly answering that such facts were “unk