[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2017, Tina Shih (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant”) for products liability and general negligence relating to a June 14, 2016 incident where hot water spilled onto Plaintiff’s thighs. Defendant moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff and her friend, Yvonne, visited a Starbucks Coffee store in Arcadia, California. (Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” No. 1.) Both Plaintiff and Yvonne ordered drinks of hot tea. (UMF Nos. 3, 4.) Yvonne sat down at a table while Plaintiff waited for the drinks. (UMF No. 5.) After the drinks were ready, Plaintiff retrieved them from the counter. (UMF No. 6.) Both drinks were double-cupped and covered with a lid and neither drink had a sleeve. (UMF Nos. 7, 8.) Plaintiff observed the cups we
Hearing Date
May 06, 2019
Type
Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2017, Tina Shih (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant”) for products liability and general negligence relating to a June 14, 2016 incident where hot water spilled onto Plaintiff’s thighs. Defendant moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff and her friend, Yvonne, visited a Starbucks Coffee store in Arcadia, California. (Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” No. 1.) Both Plaintiff and Yvonne ordered drinks of hot tea. (UMF Nos. 3, 4.) Yvonne sat down at a table while Plaintiff waited for the drinks. (UMF No. 5.) After the drinks were ready, Plaintiff retrieved them from the counter. (UMF No. 6.) Both drinks were double-cupped and covered with a lid and neither drink had a sleeve. (UMF Nos. 7, 8.) Plaintiff observed the cups we