Sargenti v. City of Long Beach

── Sargenti v. City of Long Beach ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/15/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN EDWIN SARGENTI B340275 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV04367) CITY OF LONG BEACH, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lee S. Arian, Judge. Affirmed. Kramer Trial Lawyers, Daniel Kramer, Teresa A. Johnson; Belal Hamideh Law, Belal Hamideh; Esner, Chang, Boyer & Murphy and Stuart B. Esner for Plaintiff and Appellant. Olivarez Madruga Law Organization, Thomas Matthew Madruga, Tania Ochoa; Morrison & Foerster, Aileen McGrath and Zach ZhenHe Tan for Defendant and Respondent.  INTRODUCTION While riding a rented electric scooter on a sidewalk in the City of Long Beach, Edwin Sargenti hit a patch of asphalt, fell, and suffered injuries. He sued the City for negligence, alleging that the City had notice the asphalt patch was dangerous and that the City negligently created or maintained the condition. The City moved for summary judgment on several grounds, and the trial court granted the motion on one of them: Sargenti had signed a document that waived and released his claims against the City. After giving the parties the opportunity to file supplemental briefs under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (m)(2), 1 we affirm the trial court’s order on a different ground: The City did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. In doing so, we hold serving amended interrogatory responses does not, without more, automatically create a triable issue of material fact. We also hold the Supreme Court’s decision in Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931 (Sweetwater) does not authorize the court to consider inadmissible evidence submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment where the proponent claims it can cure the evidentiary defect at trial. Therefore, we affirm. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Sargenti Falls While Riding an Electric Scooter and Sues the City One evening in January 2020 Sargenti was riding an electric scooter he rented from a company that facilitates dockless bicycle and scooter rentals in metropolitan areas through a web- based application. He was with two friends. Sargenti and one of his companions were riding on the sidewalk, except when they crossed a street; the other was “weaving in and out and jumping curbs.” While attempting to move from the sidewalk to a bicycle lane in the street, Sargenti, who had consumed one and a half beers earlier that day, hit “a blunt flat edge” of an asphalt patch “located over a portion of the driveway section of the sidewalk,” fell from the scooter, and suffered injuries. Sargenti had registered for the web-based electric scooter rental application in March 2019 by clicking on a user agreement (though he later did not remember reading or accepting it). The user agreement contained various exculpatory provisions, including that the user of the electric scooter assumed the risk of using the scooter, released the rental company and “other released persons” from claims arising out of the use of the scooter, and waived any and all claims against, indemnified, and agreed to hold harmless the “released persons.” The user agreement defined “released persons” to include municipalities and public entities like the City. Sargenti filed this negligence action against the City and the owner of the property adjacent to the sidewalk. He alleged the defendants created or negligently