Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 20STCV46976, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20STCV46976, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46976 Hearing Date: October 5, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Adefuye v. Surly Goat Group Inc. et al., Case No. 20STCV46976

Hearing Date October 5, 2023

Defendant Chompol Properties, Aivarzian, Sweeney and Bradford’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Plaintiff Adefuye, who worked as a security guard/bouncer at the Surly Goat bar/restaurant, alleges he was assaulted by other guards/bouncers. Defendant Chompol Properties, LLC, which owns the Surly Goat, and its members Aivazian, Sweeney and Bradford move for summary judgment/adjudication, arguing undisputed facts show Adefuye’s claims lack evidentiary support.

Member Defendants—Assault/Battery

A corporate officer or director is not liable for the corporation’s torts unless they ratify or directly participate in the wrongdoing. Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Ass’n. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, 503-504.

At deposition, Adefuye admitted he never met Aivizian or Sweeney, and no member defendant battered him. Defendants’ Separate Statement No. 31. This is sufficient to carry the initial burden on summary judgment, as LLC members are not liable for their entity’s torts absent direct participation.

Adefuye’s opposition does not directly address this argument. While plaintiff argues Chompol Properties employed the bouncers, he does not claim the individual members were employers and presents no evidence they participated in or ratified the alleged assault. There is no evidentiary basis for these claims against moving defendants on a direct or vicarious liability theory. Summary adjudication GRANTED as to the assault and battery claims in favor of moving defendants.

Chompol – Assault/Battery

An employee is vicariously liable for an employee’s tortious acts committed within the course and scope of employment. CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1255, 1260. An employer is not liable for the torts of its independent contractors. Johnson v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1107. An independent contractor is (1) free from the control and direction of the hiring entity, (2) performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s usual business, (3) is customarily engaged in an independently established trade. Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, 957.

Chompol provides evidence it does not control the manner and means of the guards’ work at the Surly Goat, works through a third-party contractor rather than hiring them directly, and is not in the business of providing security. Defendants’ separate statement 4-19. This is evidence the bouncers are not Chompol’s employees, so Chompol is not vicariously liable for their torts. The burden shifts to Adefuye to show a triable issue of fact as to the bouncers’ status as employees.

Adefuye argues Chompol controlled the bouncers’ activity, exposing the LLC to vicarious liability as an employer, but cites no evidence in support of this contention. Adefuye’s separate statement includes no citation to evidence that Chompol was the bouncers’ direct employer. The undisputed evidence shows they were independent contractors, not employees. There is no basis to hold Chompol vicariously liable for the alleged assault. Summary adjudication GRANTED as to the assault and battery claims against Chompol.

Ralph Act

To establish a claim under the Ralph act, plaintiff must establish defendant’s violent act or threat of violence had a discriminatory motive. Gabrielle A. v. County of Orange (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1268, 1291.

As stated, there is no basis to hold Chompol or its members directly liable for assault/battery. No violent act or threat of violence is alleged other than the assault by bouncers. Since Chompol and its members are not liable for the alleged assault, they consequently cannot be liable under the Ralph Act. Summary adjudication GRANTED as to the Ralph Act claims against Chompol and the moving defendants.

Breach of Contract

Defendants present evidence Adefuye admitted no contract existed between him and Chompol. Defendants’ Separate Statement No. 19. This is sufficient to shift the initial burden on summary judgment. Adefuye’s opposition does not address the breach of contract cause of action, which the court will treat as an admission that no contract exists. Summary adjudication GRANTED against Chompol as to the breach of contract cause of action.

Premises Liability

A cause of action for premises liability requires a plaintiff to show the property owner had knowledge of a dangerous condition that caused injury. Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th, 472, 479.

Defendants present evidence the bouncers did not constitute a dangerous condition, since Adefuye was only removed because he was drunk and unruly, and Adefuye admitted he never saw a patron injured while he worked at the bar. Defendants’ Separate Statement at pgs. 39-40.

The burden shifts to Adefuye. His separate statement presents evidence that The Doorman, Inc., Chompol’s security provider, lacked a license, did not train its security guards, the guards were not supervised, and Chompol was aware of these deficiencies. Plaintiff’s separate statement 29-39. This creates a triable issue of fact as to whether the presence of untrained, unsupervised security guards at the Surly Goat constituted a dangerous condition. DENIED.