Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case 20STCV46976 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20STCV46976, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46976 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Adefuye v. Surly Goat Group, Case No. 20STCV46976
Hearing Date February 10, 2023
Defendants Chompol Properties and Sweeney’s Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint (SAC)

Plaintiff Adefuye alleges he was beaten by security guards at the Surly Goat bar, owned by defendant Chompol Properties, after asking to be paid for work he performed there. Defendants Chompol and Sweeney demur and move to strike punitive damages from the SAC. On 10/13/2022 the court sustained a prior demurrer with leave to amend the FAC to provide facts as to the nature of the Bane/Ralph act violation allegations and to clarify Chompol and Sweeney’s liability.

Corporate officers are not liable for a corporation’s wrongdoing by virtue of their status as officers or directors; they are liable only if they personally direct, ratify or participate in tortious conduct. Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1090.

Defendants argue the SAC fails to allege the basis of defendant Sweeney’s liability for negligence, assault and battery, breach of contract, IIED, Ralph Act, Bane Act, premises liability, and vicarious liability. Defendants provide judicially noticeable evidence that Sweeney is an officer of Chompol and argue the complaint does not allege Sweeney personally directed or participated in any alleged wrongdoing and no facts are alleged to hold Chompol directly or vicariously liable.

The SAC alleges Sweeney ratified and adopted the security guards’ actions and that Sweeney, Chompol and the other defendants’ “oversaw the security procedures and protocols of the subject property,” controlled the premises where the incident occurred and hired the guards who attacked plaintiff, despite knowing they had demonstrated a history of reckless and irrational behavior. SAC at ¶¶15-17. For purposes of pleading, these allegations must be treated as true. Adefuye alleges a basis for Sweeney and Chompol’s liability. OVERRULED.

An amendment to a complaint that contradicts allegations from a prior version of the complaint is treated as a sham and disregarded, unless the inconsistency is explained. Owens v. Kings Supermarket (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 384.

The SAC alleges all defendants employed Adefuye; the initial complaint and FAC alleged only Brian Splain and Doorman Inc. were his employers. Chompol and Sweeney argue this renders the new allegations sham pleadings. The SAC does not contradict earlier versions of the pleading; it does not deny that Splain and Doorman employed Adefuye, but adds allegations that they employed him along with others. OVERRULED.

Negligent/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
After a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, the scope of the amendment is limited by the permission given by the court. People v. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785-786.

The SAC contains new causes of action for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The order sustaining the demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend did not include permission to add new causes of action; these claims are outside the court’s order and improper. SUSTAINED.

Ralph Act and Bane Act
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §51.7) prohibits violence or intimidation by threat of violence because of “political affiliation,” various protected characteristics, or “position in a labor dispute[.]” The Bane Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §52.1) prohibits interfering “by threat, intimidation, or coercion . . . with the exercise or enjoyment . . . of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution of this State.”

Defendants argue Adefuye has not alleged he was attacked for a reason specified in the Ralph Act or because of his exercise of a right protected by the Bane Act. The SAC alleges he was assaulted because of his “position in a labor dispute.” SAC ¶86. The basis of this action is Adefuye was attacked because he asked to be paid for work he performed. This constitutes a “labor dispute” under the Ralph Act, as well as exercise of a legal right under the Bane Act. OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike
Defendants move to strike the request for punitive damages on the grounds that he has not alleged wrongdoing amounting to fraud, oppression or malice by Chompol or Sweeney. The court agrees. While the SAC alleges facts, that, if proven, would establish Chompol and Sweeney’s vicarious liability for the acts of the guards, it does allege they did anything rising to the level of outrageousness required for an award of punitive damages. GRANTED.