Tamayo v. Albertsons Companies CA2/4

── Tamayo v. Albertsons Companies CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 Tamayo v. Albertsons Companies CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR MARY ANN TAMAYO, B347298 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23VECV04179) v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Wendy L. Wilcox, Judge. Affirmed. Impact Attorneys, Ellery S. Gordon, Shawn Gleizer and Nima Bencohen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Stone Dean, Gregory E. Stone and Kori N. Macksoud for Defendants and Respondents.  INTRODUCTION Mary Ann Tamayo was injured in a slip-and-fall in a parking lot outside a Vons supermarket while holding her toddler son, Zayden Ramirez.1 Tamayo, Zayden, and Tamayo’s husband sued The Vons Companies, Inc., and the landlord of the shopping center, Combined Properties, Inc. (CPI), for negligence and premises liability. Vons moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it leased only its store premises, and it did not possess or control the parking lot outside where Tamayo fell. The trial court granted Vons’s motion, and plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. The evidence presented showed that CPI and its agent controlled the cleaning and maintenance of the parking lot where Tamayo fell. Vons’s incidental use of the parking lot, including shopping cart collection and occasional cleaning, did not rise to the level of “control” of the parking lot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Complaint On September 19, 2023, Tamayo was walking in the parking lot of a shopping center in Reseda, carrying her two-year- old son, Zayden. As she walked across a marked crosswalk toward the entrance door to a Vons grocery store, Tamayo fell to the ground. Tamayo’s patella (kneecap) broke, and Zayden hit his head. The following day, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Vons, CPI, and others. The first amended complaint (FAC) was operative at the time of the motion for summary judgment, so we focus on the allegations in that version of the pleadings. 1 We refer to Zayden by his first name to avoid confusion. 2  Plaintiffs alleged that as Tamayo approached the Vons entrance door, she “slipped on an unknown, slimy food substance, believed to be yogurt or some other substance with similar consistency.” Tamayo “sustained a comminuted fracture of her left patella that now requires surgical repair.” Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to properly “maintain, inspect, repair, operate, secure, and control the Premises, which caused the hazard and dangerous condition” in the crosswalk. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants knew or should have known that “the hazard posed a probable threat of danger and harm to customers and guests . . . who could reasonably be expected walk into the Premises through the front doors.” They asserted that defendants’ failure “to mark, remove, warn, advise, or otherwise notify persons” of the dangerous condition constituted negligence. The FAC alleged that security camera footage showed “an unidentified individual exiting the Vons grocery store and accidentally dropping a container filled with an unknown substance on the pedestrian crosswalk just outside the store’s e