85 Cal.App.5th 759
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiff Ramon Pereda (49) trained at The Jiu Jitsu League (the League / “Atos Long Beach”) and was injured by a chokehold during sparring.
- The League is owned and operated by Kevin and Haley Howell; Atos Jiu-Jitsu Association (Atos), founded by Andre Galvao, lists the League as an affiliate on its website and permits affiliates to compete under the Atos name.
- The League displayed Atos branding and received Atos curriculum and a code of conduct, but was not required to implement them; Atos/Galvao had no ownership, employment relationship, or routine supervision of the League’s day-to-day classes.
- Pereda sued the League, the Howells, and a sparring partner; he amended to add Atos and Galvao, alleging Atos/ Galvao were liable under an ostensible-agency theory for failure to supervise sparring.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing assumption of risk and that defendants did not increase risk because they lacked control; Pereda’s opposition expressly argued ostensible agency.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Atos and Galvao, finding a franchise-like relationship but no actual control and no reasonable basis for Pereda to believe Atos controlled the League’s sparring; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court violated due process by granting summary judgment on lack-of-control/ostensible-agency ground | Pereda: court deprived him of process by deciding lack-of-control when he claims he needed more opportunity to develop evidence | Atos: issue was presented in Pereda’s opposition and evidence supporting lack of control was in moving papers; court had discretion to decide it | No due process violation — Pereda expressly raised and briefed ostensible agency; court properly considered it. |
| Whether Pereda’s belief that Atos controlled League’s sparring was reasonable (ostensible agency) | Pereda: Atos branding, website listing affiliates, and use of Atos curriculum supported a reasonable belief that Atos controlled League’s safety/supervision | Atos: mere use of trade name, listing affiliates, and optional curriculum do not reasonably imply control over day-to-day operations or sparring supervision | No — as a matter of law, Pereda’s knowledge did not establish a reasonable belief that Atos controlled the means and manner of the League’s sparring; ostensible agency failed. |
| Whether franchise relationship alone creates vicarious liability for franchisor | Pereda: franchise-like relationship makes Atos responsible | Atos: a bona fide franchisor-franchisee relationship does not render franchisor automatically liable absent actual exercise of control over the conduct that caused injury | Court: franchise status alone insufficient; franchisor liable only if it actually exercised or was reasonably believed to exercise control over the specific operational area causing harm. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the merits | Pereda: disputed many facts and sought to create triable issue | Atos: no triable issue on ostensible agency; plaintiff conceded no actual agency; evidence favors defendants | Summary judgment affirmed — no triable issue on reasonableness of ostensible-agency belief; alternative assumption-of-risk basis not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal.4th 474 (2014) (franchisor’s control over brand/operating system alone insufficient to establish agency)
- Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Davis, 13 Cal.3d 374 (1975) (elements of ostensible agency: reasonable belief, generated by principal, absence of plaintiff negligence)
- Kaplan v. Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc., 59 Cal.App.4th 741 (1997) (franchisor’s affirmative advertising campaigns can create triable issues about ostensible agency)
- Beck v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 245 Cal.App.2d 976 (1966) (licensor’s close supervision may support agency in statutory contexts)
- Juge v. County of Sacramento, 12 Cal.App.4th 59 (1993) (trial court generally limited to grounds identified in moving papers but may consider others when evidence is in record and opposing party has notice)