,Lh

;Y

.[IC

e.

‘Ffl

INT

HE

CO

UR

TO

FA

PP

EA

L

2H! ;iv28

FTh3:

25O

FT

HE

ST

AT

EO

FC

AL

IFO

RN

IA

SE

CO

ND

AP

PE

LL

AT

ED

IST

RIC

T,

DIV

ISIO

NF

IVE

CO

FF

EE

HO

US

E,

)2d

Civ.

No.

B234545

Petitioner,

)L

osA

ngelesS

uperiorC

ourt,)

Case

No.

GC

044903vs.

))[H

on.C

.E

dward

Sim

pson,Judge;

SU

PE

RIO

RC

OU

RT

FO

RT

HE

CO

UN

TY

)D

ept:N

ER

(626)356-5356]

OF

LO

SA

NG

EL

ES

,))

Respondent.

)

_______________________________________________________________________________

)B

IHN

TH

AI

TR

AN

,D

AN

CA

Oand

)F

RA

NK

LU

ON

G))

Real

Parties

inInterest.

)

_________________________________________________________________

)

RE

PL

YT

OR

EA

LP

AR

TIE

S’

RE

TU

RN

TO

PE

TIT

ION

FO

RW

RIT

OF

MA

ND

AT

EO

RO

TH

ER

AP

PR

OP

RIA

TE

RE

LIE

F

EA

RL

Y,

MA

SL

AC

H&

VA

ND

UE

CK

James

Grafton

Randall,

SB

N126220

JohnC

.N

otti,S

BN

109728P

aulA

.C

arron,S

BN

123012700

South

Flow

erS

treet,S

uite2800

Los

Angeles,

California

90017(213)

615-2500I/F

ax(213)

615-2698

GR

EIN

ES

,M

AR

TIN

,S

TE

IN&

RIC

HL

AN

DL

LP

Robert

A.

Olson,

SB

N109374

Alana

H.

Rotter,

SB

N236666

5900W

ilshireB

oulevard,12th

Floor

Los

Angeles,

California

90036(310)

859-7811I/F

ax(310)

276-5261

Attorneys

forP

etitionerC

OF

FE

EH

OU

SE

INT

HE

CO

UR

TO

FA

PP

EA

L

OF

TH

ES

TA

TE

OF

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

SE

CO

ND

AP

PE

LLAT

ED

IST

RIC

T,D

iVIS

ION

FIV

E

CO

FFEE

HO

US

E,

)2d

Civ.

No.

B234545

)Los

Angeles

Superior

Court,

)Case

No.

GC

044903

RE

PLY

TO

RE

AL

PA

RT

IES

’RE

TU

RN

TO

PE

TIT

ION

FO

RW

RIT

OF

MA

ND

AT

EO

RO

TH

ER

AP

PR

OP

RIA

TE

RE

LIE

F

EA

RLY

,MA

SLA

CH

&V

AN

DU

EC

KJam

esG

raftonR

andall,S

BN

126220John

C.Notti,

SB

N109728

PaulA

.C

anon,S

BN

123012700

South

Flower

Street,Suite

2800Los

Angeles,

California

90017(213)

615-2500/IFax(213)

615-2698

GR

EIN

ES

,MA

RT

IN,

STE

IN&

RIC

HLA

ND

LLPR

obertA.

Olson,

SB

N109374

Alana

H.R

otter,S

BN

2366665900

Wilshire

Boulevard,

12thFloor

LosA

ngeles,C

alifornia90036

(310)859-7811

I/Fax

(310)276-5261

Attorneys

forPetitioner

CO

FFEE

HO

US

E )P

etitioner,

vs.))

SU

PE

RIO

RC

OU

RT

FOR

TH

EC

OU

NT

Y)

OF

LOS

AN

GE

LES

,))

Respondent.

)

[Hon.

C.Edw

ardSim

pson,Judge;

Dept:

NE

R(626)

356-5356]

BIH

NT

HA

ITR

AN

,D

AN

CA

Oand

FR

AN

KLU

ON

G

RealParties

inInterest.

))))))

INTH

EC

OU

RT

OF

AP

PE

AL

OF

TH

ES

TATE

OF

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

SE

CO

ND

AP

PE

LLAT

ED

IST

RIC

T,D

iVIS

ION

FiV

E

CO

FFEE

HO

US

E,

vs.

Petitioner,

SU

PE

RIO

RC

OU

RT

FOR

OF

LOS

AN

GE

LES

,

Respondent.

THE

CO

UN

TY

B1}IN

TH

AI

ThA

N,

DA

NC

AO

andF

RA

NK

LUO

NG

RealParties

inInterest.

))2d

Civ.

No.

B234545

)Los

Angeles

SuperiorC

ourt,)

Case

No.

GC

044903))

[Hon.

C.Edw

ardSim

pson,Judge;

)D

ept:N

ER

(626)356-5356]

)))))))))

RE

PLY

TO

RE

AL

PA

RT

IES

’RE

TU

RN

TO

PE

TIT

ION

FO

RW

RIT

OF

MA

ND

AT

EO

RO

TH

ER

AP

PR

OP

RIA

TE

RE

LIE

F

EA

RLY

,M

AS

LAC

H&

VA

ND

UE

CK

James

Grafton

Randall,

SB

N126220

JohnC.N

otti,S

BN

109728PaulA

.C

arron,S

BN

123012700

South

Flower

Street,S

uite2800

LosA

ngeles,C

alifornia90017

(213)615-2500//Fax

(213)615-2698

GR

EIN

ES

,MA

RT

IN,

STE

IN&

RIC

HLA

ND

LLPR

obertA.

Olson,

SB

N109374

Alana

H.R

otter,S

BN

2366665900

Wilshire

Boulevard,

12thF

loorLos

Angeles,

California

90036(310)

859-7811I/F

ax(310)

276-5261

Attorneys

forPetitioner

CO

FFEE

HO

US

E

TA

BL

EO

FC

ON

TE

NT

S

Page

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

1

TR

AV

ER

SE

TOP

LAIN

TIF

FS

’RE

TU

RN

2

VE

RIF

ICA

TIO

N4

ME

MO

RA

ND

UM

OF

PO

INTS

AN

DA

UT

HO

RIT

IES

5

I.The

CasesC

itedIn

TheA

lternativeW

rit—Largely

IgnoredIn

TheR

eturn—R

einforceThatC

offeeH

ouseIs

Entitled

ToS

umm

aryJudgm

ent.5

II.The

Return

Does

NotE

stablishA

TriableFactD

isputeA

sTo

Duty.

7

A.

Delgado

v.Trw

cB

ar&

GrillD

oesN

otSupportThe

Burdensom

eD

utiesThatP

laintiffsSeek

ToIm

poseH

ere.7

B.P

laintiffs’V

ague,Unsubstantiated

Claim

ThatS

hootingSuspects

Have

BeenIdentified

Does

Not

ImpactThe

ForeseeabilityA

nalysis.9

C.C

offeeH

ouseD

idN

otWaive

ItsForeseeability

Argum

ent.10

Ill.The

Return

Does

NotIdentify

ATriable

FactDispute

As

ToC

ausation.10

CO

NC

LUS

ION

11

CE

RT

IFIC

AT

EO

FW

OR

DC

OU

NT

12

1

TA

BL

EO

FA

UT

HO

RIT

IES

Page

Cases:

Aguilar

v.A

tlanticR

ichfieldC

o.(2001)

25C

aI.4th826

8

Castaneda

v.O

lsher(2007)

21C

al.4th1205

6-10

Davis

v.G

omez

(1989)207

Cal.A

pp.3d1401

6

Delgado

v.TraxB

ar&

Grill

(2005)36

Cal.4th

2241,6-8

LeslieG

.v.

Perry

&Associates

(1996)43

Cal.A

pp.4th472

6

MargaretW

.v.

Kelley

R.

(2006)139

Cal.A

pp.4th141

7,10

Physicians

Com

mittee

forResponsible

Medicine

v.M

cDonalds

(2010)187

Cal.A

pp.4th554

9

Reid

v.G

oogle,Inc.(2010)

50C

al.4th512

8

Saelzler

v.Advanced

Group

400(2001)

25C

aI.4th763

6

SharonP.v.An~ian,Ltd.(1999)21

Cal.4th

11818

Thaiv.Strang

(1989)214

Cal.A

pp.3d1264

5

Wienerv.

SouthcoastChild-C

areC

enters,Inc.(2004)32

Cal.4th

11386

11

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

TheR

eturndoes

notdifferm

uchfrom

theprelim

inaryopposition.

Forthe

mostpart,itjustrehashes

thesam

eargum

ents.Like

theprelim

inary

opposition,itignores

thelarge

bodyofcase

law—

includingm

ostofthe

casescited

inthe

Alternative

Writ—

requiringheightened

foreseeability

beforea

businessw

illbeheld

liablefor

failingto

preventathird

party’s

criminalact.

And

likethe

preliminary

opposition,itrelies

onD

elgadov.

TraxB

ar&

Grill(2005)

36C

al.4th224,w

hichis

inappositebecause

it

involveda

business’sactualaw

arenessofan

imm

inentcrime.

Aboutthe

onlynew

thingin

theR

eturnis

thevague,unsupported

assertionthat

suspectshave

beenarrested

inthe

shootingthatled

tothis

suit.B

utitisa

greatleapfrom

thatassertionto

theevidence

thatwould

benecessary

to

defeatsumm

aryjudgm

ent—evidence

thattheshooting

was

sufficiently

foreseeableto

justifyim

posingthe

burdensome

dutiesthatplaintiffs

propose,and

thatanybreach

ofdutycaused

plaintiffs’injuries.

Thebottom

linerem

ainsthe

same:

Averbalconfrontation

between

cafépatrons,evenone

where

aw

eaponis

brandished,doesnotm

akeit

reasonablyforeseeable

thatmonths

later,masked

gunmen

willsuddenly

appearandspray

theca

féwith

gunfire.N

oris

plaintiffs’speculative

expert

declarationsubstantialevidence

ofcausation.The

defendantcafétherefore

was

entitledto

summ

aryjudgm

ent.A

peremptory

writ

tothateffectshould

issue.

1

TR

AV

ER

SE

TO

PL

AIN

TIF

FS

’RE

TU

RN

Plaintiffs’R

eturnadm

itsvirtually

allofthefacts

underlyingthe

summ

aryjudgm

entmotion

atissuehere.

Plaintiffs

alsoallege

ahandfulof

additionalfacts,andargue

abouttheapplication

ofcaselaw

tothe

facts.

Petitioner

Coffee

House

addressesthe

legalargumentin

theattached

mem

orandumofpoints

andauthorities.

Itrespondsto

theadditionalfactual

allegationsas

follows:

1.A

sto

paragraph5:

Plaintiffs

concedethatthe

attackers’

identitiesw

ereunknow

natthe

time

ofthesum

mary

judgmenthearing.

(Return

p.9,‘if21(b)(2).)

Butnow

theyclaim

—for

thefirsttim

e—thatthe

policehave

identifiedsuspects.

(Ibid.)There

isno

recordsupportfor

the

claim.

Itism

ade“on

information

andbelief,”

basedon

anunspecified

“confidentialsource”w

hocounselsays

hebelieves.

(Ibid.;Return

p.11.)

Plaintiffs

provideno

detailsatall:

notwhen

thesuspects

were

identified,

notwho

theyare,notw

hattheirmotive

was.

Plaintiffs

admitthatthey

have

noneofthis

information.

(Return

p.9,¶21(b)(2).)

Theydo

noteven

describethe

natureoftheirclaim

edconfidentialsource.

Thereis

nothing

byw

hichto

gaugethe

claim’s

reliability,m

akingthe

unsubstantiated

allegationno

betterthan

rumor.

ThisC

ourtshoulddisregard

it.E

venif

it

doesnot,the

allegationw

ouldshed

nolight

onw

hethertheshooting

was

reasonablyforeseeable

beforeithappened,

therelevantquestion

here.

2.A

sto

paragraph21(a)(2):

As

am

atteroflaw

,the

February

2009shooting

was

notreasonablyforeseeable

froma

heatedverbal

2

confrontationtw

om

onthsearlier.

(SeeE

xh.20-21,201-202,247-249;

Petition

forW

ritofMandate

(“Pet.”)

13-14,21-24.)

3.A

sto

paragraph21(b)(1):

TheN

guyendeclaration

should

havebeen

strickenbecause,

among

otherthings,

itlacksfoundation

andits

vagueassertion

thatvariousm

easuresw

ouldhave

deterredorprevented

this

incidentispure

speculation.(See

Exh.

214-223[evidentiary

objections];

Pet.14-15

[arguingthattrialcourtabused

itsdiscretion

inoverruling

objections].)

4.A

sto

paragraph21(b)(2):

Again,

thisC

ourtshoulddisregard

plaintiffs’belated,unsubstantiated

claimthatsuspects

havebeen

identified.

(See¶

1,ante.)

5.A

sto

paragraph21(b)(3):

Nguyen’s

declarationprovides

no

foundationfor

knowledge

ofhowthe

SanG

abrielPolice

Departm

entwould

haveresponded

ifC

offeeH

ousehad

reporteda

priorverbalconfrontation,

orw

hetherany

responsew

ouldhave

preventedthis

incident.(See

Exh.

214-223[evidentiary

objections];Pet.

14-15[arguing

thattrialcourtabused

itsdiscretion

inoverruling

objections].)M

oreover,Nguyen

didnoteven

purporttoknow

thatVietand

Hung

hadgang

affiliations(E

xh.93),

and

thereis

nocognizable

evidenceofthatin

therecord.

3

VE

RIF

ICA

TIO

N

I,Jam

esG

raftonR

andall,declare:

Iam

anattorney

dulylicensed

topractice

lawin

California.

Iam

associatedw

iththe

lawfirm

ofE

arly,M

aslach&

Van

Dueck,attorneys

of

recordfor

petitionerC

offeeH

ousein

thisproceeding.

Ihavereview

edand

amfam

iliarw

iththe

recordsand

filesthatare

thebasis

ofthis

reply.Im

ake

thisdeclaration

becauseI

amm

orefam

iliarw

iththe

particularfacts,

i.e.,the

stateofthe

record,thanis

my

client.This

reply’sfactualallegations

are

trueand

correct.

Ideclareunder

penaltyofperjury

underthe

laws

ofthe

Stateof

California

thattheforegoing

istrue

andcorrect.

Executed

onN

ove

mber1

,2011,at

ME

MO

RA

ND

UM

OF

PO

iNT

SA

N])

AU

TH

OR

ITIE

S

I.The

Cases

Cited

InThe

Alternative

Writ—

La

rge

lyIgnored

In

TheR

eturn—R

einforceT

hatC

offeeH

ouseIs

Entitled

To

Sum

mary

Judgment.

Coffee

House’s

petitiondem

onstratedthatitis

entitledto

summ

ary

judgmenton

two

independentgrounds:

•P

laintiffscannotestablish

thatasingle

heated,verbal

confrontationbetw

eentw

opatrons

imposed

aduty

onC

offee

House

toundertake

theburdensom

e,open-ended

security

measures

thattheypropose.

(Pet.19-31.)

•E

venif

Coffee

House

hada

dutyto

undertakethe

vague

proposedm

easures,plaintiffscannotestablish

areasonable

probabilitythatthose

measures

would

haveprevented

the

shootingram

pageby

masked

gumnen.

(Pet.31-37.)

ThisC

ourt’sA

lternativeW

ritcitessix

casessupporting

these

grounds.A

llsix

rejectattempts

tohold

alandlord

liablefor

athird

party’s

criminalact.

Theyare

directlyon

point,highlightingfundam

entalgapsin

plaintiffs’case

asto

bothforeseeability

andcausation.

Plaintiff’s

response?

No

comm

ent.

TheR

eturnsays

nothingaboutthe

closelyanalogous

Thaiv.S

trang

(1989)214

Cal.A

pp.3d1264,w

hichheld

thatadrive-by

shootingata

roller

5

rinkw

asnotforeseeable

eventhough

aperson

hadbeen

threatenedw

itha

riflein

therink’s

parkinglotthree

daysearlier.

(Id.atpp.

1269,1273.)

It

saysnothing

aboutDavis

v.G

omez

(1989)207

Cal.A

pp.3d1401,w

hich

heldthata

tenant’spossession

ofafirearm

didnotforetellthat“she

was

actuallydisposed

touse

itindiscriminately

againstanothertenant.”

(Id.at

pp.1404-1405.)

Itsaysnothing

aboutW

ienerv.S

outhcoastChild-C

are

Centers,

Inc.(2004)

32C

al.4th1138,

which

emphasized

thatheightened

foreseeabilityis

requiredin

partbecause“if

acrim

inaldecideson

a

particulargoalorvictim

,itis

extremely

difficulttorem

ovehis

everym

eans

forachieving

thatgoal.”(Id.

atp.1150.)

Itsays

nothingaboutLeslie

G.v.

Perry

&A

ssociates(1996)

43C

al.App.4th

472,which

heldthatproofof

causafion“cannotbe

basedon

mere

speculation,conjecture

andinferences

drawn

fromotherinferences

toreach

aconclusion

unsupportedby

anyreal

evidence,or

onan

expert’sopinion

basedon

inferences,speculationand

conjecture.”(Id.

atp.488.)A

nditsays

nothingaboutS

aelzlerv.Advanced

Group

400(2001)

25C

al.4th763,w

hichrejected

asecurity

expert’s

causationtestim

onyon

theground

thatwithoutknow

ingthe

assailants’

identities,he

couldnotestablish

causation.(Id.

atp.781.)

TheR

eturnalso

ignoresa

significantaspectoftheone

citedcase

that

itdoes

acknowledge.

Castaneda

v.O

lsher(2007)

41C

al.4th1205

is

relevantnotjustforits

foreseeabilityanalysis,w

hichplaintiffs

tryto

distinguish,butalsofor

itsholding

thataproperty

owner

doesnotow

ea

dutyto

excludeeven

suspectedgang

mem

bersw

hoturn

outtobe

6

assailants—a

pointwhich

plaintiffsdo

notmention.

(Id.atp.

1210;see

also

Pet.13-14,26-27

[emphasizing

thispoint].)

Therestofthe

Return

isno

more

persuasive,primarily

rehashing

arguments

thatplaintiffsasserted

inthe

preliminary

opposition.Those

arguments

areno

betterthe

secondtim

earound.

H.

TheR

eturnD

oesN

otEstablish

AT

riableFactD

isputeA

sT

o

Duty.

A.

Delgado

v.T

raxB

ar&

GrillD

oesN

otSupport

The

Burdensom

eD

utiesT

hatPlaintiffs

SeekT

oIm

poseH

ere.

TheR

eturnargues

thatevenif

aconfrontation

between

two

patrons

didnotm

akea

shootingspree

two

months

laterforeseeableenough

to

requirehiring

asecurity

guard,Delgado

v.Trax

Bar

&G

rilljustifies

imposing

othermeasures

thattheypropose.

(Return

2,7-8,12-21,22-24.)

Delgado

doesno

suchthing.

Delgado

isinapposite

becauseitinvolved

abarthatknew

ofan

unfoldingattack

andfailed

torespond.

(36C

aI.4thatpp.

245-247.)H

ere,

bycontrast,

theissue

isa

cafe’sduty

topreventpossible

futureconduct.

Thatisa

verydifferentinquiry.

(MargaretW

v.Kelley

R.(2006)

139

Cal.A

pp.4th141,

160[distinguishing

Delgado

onthis

ground].)

Inany

event,Delgado

confirmed

thatthereis

noduty

totake

any

burdensome

measure

topreventfuture

criminalacts,absenta

showing

of

heightenedforeseeability.

(36C

al.4thatp.

243,fn.24.)

Allofthe

7

measures

thatplaintiffspropose

hereare

burdensome.

TheSuprem

eC

ourt

hasexpressly

categorizedvideo

monitoring

andexcluding

suspectedgang

mem

bersas

highlyburdensom

e.(Ibid;

Sharon

P.v.Ar.’nan,

Ltd.(1999)

21

Cal.4th

1181,1195-1196;

Castaneda,supra,41

Cal.4th

atp.1210.)~”

Plaintiffs’

own

expertattestedthatreporting

theprior

confrontationto

policew

ouldhave

exposedC

offeeH

ouseto

gangretribution.

(Exh.

89.)

And

theproposed

dutyto

warn

patronsindefinitely

abouttheprior

incident

would

becom

mercialsuicide.

(Pet.27-29;P

reliminary

Reply

5-6.)

Plaintiffs’proposed

measures

arefar

afieldfrom

them

inimally

burdensome

dutiesim

posedin

Delgado.

There,the

bar’ssecurity

guard

concludedthata

fightw

aslikely

tobreak

outunlesshe

separatedtw

o

groupsofpeople.

(36C

al.4thatp.245.)

He

toldone

groupto

leavethe

bar.(Ibid.)

Theother

groupfollow

ed,and

afightbroke

outinthe

parking

lot.(Id.

atp.231.)

TheC

ourtheldthatthe

guardshould

haveattem

ptedto

dissuadethe

secondgroup

fromfollow

ingthe

first,or

confirmed

thatthe

outsideguard

was

athispostto

keepthe

groupsseparate.

(Id.at

pp.246-247.)

That’sit.

Thereis

nosuggestion

thatthebarhad

totake

measures

thatcouldlead

toviolentretribution,decreased

business,and

ongoingexpense.

Becausethatis

whatplaintiffs

urgehere,D

elgado,and

theform

juryinstruction

basedon

it(see

Return

18-20),areunavailing.

1/S

haronP.

was

disapprovedon

othergroundsby

Aguilarv.A

tlanticR

ichfieldCo.

(2001)25

Cal.4th

826,853,fn.

19and

byR

eidv.

Google,

Inc.(2010)

50C

al.4th512,

527,fn.5.

8

B.

Plaintiffs’V

ague,Unsubstantiated

Claim

That

Shooting

Suspects

Have

Been

IdentifiedD

oesN

otImpactThe

Foresecabiity

Analysis.

Ina

brandnew

claim,

theR

eturnasserts

vaguely—w

ithno

detailsor

evidentiarysupport—

thatsuspects

inthe

shootinghave

beenidentified

and

arrested.(R

eturn3,5,

9;see

alsoR

eturn11

[plaintiffs’counselclaim

ingto

haveobtained

information

froman

unspecifiedconfidentialsource].)

This

new,last-ditch

claimshould

bedisregarded,

bothbecause

itis

unsubstantiatedand

becauseitw

asnotbefore

thetrialcourtatthe

time

of

thesum

mary

judgmentm

otion.(P

hysiciansC

omm

itteefo

rR

esponsible

Medicine

v.McD

onald’sC

orp.(2010)

187C

al.App.4th

554,568[“In

reassessingthe

merits

ofthe(sum

mary

judgment)

motion,

we

consideronly

thefacts

properlybefore

thetrialcourtatthe

time

itruledon

them

otion,”

internalquotationm

arksom

itted].)

Buteven

ifconsidered,the

claimdoes

notchangethe

foreseeability

analysis.The

identityofthe

masked

gunmen

would

onlylead

to

after-the-factsecondguessing.

Ithasno

bearingon

whatC

offeeH

ouse

reasonablyshould

haveforeseen

beforethe

attack.The

questionrem

ains

whether,

when

onepatron

slamm

eda

gundow

nand

accusedanotherpatron

ofbad-mouthing

him,

Coffee

House

shouldhave

predictedthattw

om

onths

later—after

thetw

opatrons

hadbeen

backw

ithoutincident—m

asked

gunmen

would

goon

ashooting

spreein

thecafé.

(Castaneda,supra,41

Cal.4th

atp.1221

[questionis

whetherproperty

owner

“couldhave

9

predictedthe

thirdparty

crime

would

likelyoccur”];M

argaretW,

supra,

139C

al.App.4th

atp.156

[“foreseeabilitym

ustbem

easuredby

whatthe

defendantactuallyknew

”].)The

answerrem

ainsno.

C.

Coffee

House

Did

NotW

aiveIts

Foreseeabiity

Argum

ent.

Contrary

toplaintiffs’

assertion,Coffee

House’s

separatestatem

ent

ofundisputedfacts

encompassed

itsargum

entthattheshooting

was

not

reasonablyforeseeable.

Plaintiffs

seizeon

thefactthatthere

was

no

separateheading

forforeseeability.

(SeeR

eturn21.)

No

matter.

Foreseeabilityis

simply

onefactor

indeterm

iningthe

scopeofC

offee

House’s

dutyofcare.

(Castaneda,supra,41

Cal.4th

atp.1213.)

The

separatestatem

enthada

sectionentitled

“DefendantO

wed

Plaintiffs

No

Duty

OfC

are,”w

hichincluded

thefacts

relatingto

boththe

shootingand

theverbalconfrontation

months

earlier.(See

Exh.

51-54.)Thatsection

encompassed

theissue

ofduty,includingthe

subsidiaryquestion

of

foreseeability.

ifi.The

Return

Does

NotIdentify

AT

riableF

actDispute

As

To

Causation.

Inclaim

inga

triablefactdispute

asto

causation,the

Return

parrots,

virtuallyverbatim

,plaintiffs’

preliminary

opposition.(C

ompare

Prelim

inaryO

pposition6-7

andR

eturn24-26.)

Coffee

House

hasalready

addressedthe

argumentin

itsprelim

inaryreply,

andso

doesnotrehash

it

10

here.(P

reliminary

Reply

7-8.)The

causationcases

citedin

theA

lternative

Writ,

which

plaintiffsignore,reinforce

thepoint:

Thethin,

speculative

evidencethatplaintiffs

relyon

doesnotestablish

thattheirproposed

securitym

easures,more

probablythan

not,would

haveprevented

the

shootingram

pageby

masked

men.

Causation

remains

anindependent

groundcom

pellingsununary

judgmentfor

Coffee

House.

CO

NC

LUS

ION

Thetrialcourtclearly

erredin

denyingsum

mary

judgmentfor

Coffee

House.

ThisC

ourtshouldissue

therequested

writrelief,

directing

thetrialcourtto

vacateits

orderdenying

summ

aryjudgm

entandto

entera

newordergranting

summ

aryjudgm

ent.

Dated:

Novem

ber28,2011

Respectfully

submitted,

EA

RLY

,MA

SLA

CH

&V

AN

DU

EC

KJam

esG

.Randall

JohnC.N

ottiPaulA

.C

arron

GR

EIN

ES

,MA

RT

IN,

STE

IN&

RIC

HLA

NI)

LLPR

obertA.

Olson

Alana

H.

Rotter

By:

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

_A

lanaH

.Rotter

Attorneys

forP

etitionerC

OFFE

EH

OU

SE

11

CE

RT

IFIC

AT

EO

FW

O1Th

CO

UN

T

Pursuantto

California

Rules

ofCourt,rule

8.204(c)(1),I

certifythat

thisR

EP

LYT

OR

EA

LP

AR

TIE

S’R

ET

UR

NT

OP

ET

ITIO

NF

OR

WR

ITO

FM

AN

DA

TE

OR

OT

HE

RA

PP

RO

PR

IAT

ER

EL

IEF

was

producedusing

13-pointTimes

New

Rom

antype

styleand

contains2,252

words,

notincludingthe

tablesofcontents

andauthorities,the

captionpage,

signatureblocks,C

ertificateofInterested

Entities

OrPersons,orthis

Certification

page.

Dated:

Novem

ber28,2011

Alana

H.R

otter

12

PR

OO

FO

FS

ER

VIC

E

ST

AT

EO

FC

AL

IFO

RN

IA,

CO

UN

TY

OF

LOS

AN

GE

LES

Iam

employed

inthe

County

ofLosA

ngeles,State

ofCalifornia,

Iam

overtheage

of18

andnota

partyto

thew

ithinaction;

my

businessaddress

is5900

Wilshire

Boulevard,

12thFloor,Los

Angeles,C

alifornia90036.

On

Novem

ber28,

2011,Iserved

theforegoing

documentdescribed

as:R

EP

LYT

OR

EA

LP

AR

TIE

S’

RE

TU

RN

TO

PE

TIT

ION

FO

RW

RIT

OF

MA

ND

AT

EO

RO

TH

ER

AP

PR

OP

RIA

TE

RE

LIE

Fon

theparties

inthis

actionby

placinga

truecopy

thereofenclosedin

sealedenvelope(s)

addressedas

follows:

Khuong

Dinh

Nguyen,

Esq.Law

Offices

ofRobertH

.London9550

Flair

Drive,

Suite

301E

lMonte,C

alifornia91731

(626)575-9200

[Attorneys

for

Pla

intiffand

Real

Parties

inInterestB

INH

TH

AI

TR

AN

,D

AN

CA

O,

FR

AN

KY

LUO

NG

]

Clerk

tothe

Honorable

Hon.

C.Edw

ardS

impson,Jr.

LosA

ngelesC

ountyS

uperiorC

ourtD

epartmentN

ER

300EastW

alnutStreetPasadena,C

alifornia91101-1566

(626)356-5336

[LAS

CC

aseN

o.G

C044903]

(X)

BY

MA

IL:

As

follows:

Iam

“readilyfam

iliar”w

iththis

firm’s

practiceof

collectionand

processingcorrespondence

form

ailing.U

nderthatpractice,it

would

bedeposited

with

United

StatesPostalS

erviceon

thatsame

dayw

ithpostage

thereonfully

prepaidatLos

Angeles,

California

inthe

ordinarycourse

ofbusiness.I

amaw

arethaton

motion

ofpartyserved,

serviceis

presumed

invalidif

postalcancellationdate

orpostage

meter

dateis

more

thanI

dayafterdate

ofdepositform

ailingin

affidavit.

Executed

onN

ovember28,2011,

atLosA

ngeles,C

alifornia.

(X)

(State)I

declareunderpenalty

ofperjuryunder

thelaw

softhe

StateofC

aliforniathatthe

foregoingis

trueand

correct.

Anita

F.Cole