OMLO Partner Tania Ochoa recently notched a significant appellate victory on behalf of the City of Long Beach in Sargenti v. City of Long Beach, a premises liability action arising from an electric-scooter accident, when the California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City.
The case arose after the Plaintiff was injured while riding a rented electric scooter in Long Beach and sued the City, alleging it had negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition.
OMLO moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, with the trial court ultimately granting the City’s motion based on an exculpatory provision contained in the scooter rental agreement. The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment, challenging the trial court’s ruling and arguing, among other things, that evidence established the City had notice of the alleged dangerous condition.
On May 15, 2026, the judgment was affirmed on different grounds, the Court concluding Plaintiff had failed to establish that the City had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. In reaching that conclusion, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s evidence was not properly authenticated and therefore could not establish the duration of the alleged condition for purposes of defeating summary judgment. The Court also addressed the effect of amended interrogatory responses, explaining that amended discovery responses do not, standing alone, create a triable issue of material fact. The Court further rejected the argument that inadmissible evidence could be relied upon at the summary judgment stage where the evidentiary defect had not been cured.
On August 19, 2026, the California Supreme Court denied to hear the case, effectively reinforcing the importance of requiring Plaintiffs to support claims against public entities with admissible evidence sufficient to establish each element of liability at the summary judgment stage.