Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV36110, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36110    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Gregorio Juarez (“Gregorio”), Uriel Juarez, and Grejur CO LLC (collectively, “Defendants”)[1]

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges 22 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship.  On December 12, 2022, Defendants filed a cross-complaint (the “XC”) alleging” battery; and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In relevant part, the XC alleges: between January 1, 2019 and December 11, 2022, Plaintiff hit Gregorio in the face.  (CX at p. 4.)  Plaintiff’s conduct caused both physical and emotional injuries.  (See XC at p. 4-5.) 

Plaintiff filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the XC on the grounds that the XC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)  The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.  (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.)  With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.  (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)  While the allegations of a complaint must be accepted as true for purposes of demurrer, the facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint will also be accepted as true, and, if contrary to the allegations in the pleading, will be given precedence.  (Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1145-46.)  A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

Battery

The elements of a civil battery are: (1) the defendant intentionally did an act which resulted in a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person; (2) the plaintiff did not consent to the contact; and (3) the harmful or offensive contact caused injury, damage, loss or harm to the plaintiff.  (Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495.)

Plaintiff argues that the XC’s allegations are too vague to state a battery claim.  This is not a basis for a general demurrer.  Objections that a complaint is ambiguous or uncertain, or that essential facts appear only inferentially, or as conclusions of law, or by way of recitals, must be raised by special demurrer, and cannot be reached on general demurrer.  (Johnson v. Mead (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 156, 160.)  The Court finds that the XC alleges the essential elements to state a battery claim and therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the first cause of action.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 To state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous behavior with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress.  (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.)  Conduct is considered extreme and outrageous when it is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.  (Id.)  Behavior may be considered outrageous if a defendant: (1) abuses a position that gives him power over a plaintiff’s interest; (2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through emotional distress; or (3) acts intentionally or unreasonably when the conduct is likely to result in mental distress and illness.  (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 946.)  Whether conduct is extreme or outrageous is generally a question of fact.  (See Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 356.)

            Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim mirror those raised to challenge the battery claim.  The Court likewise finds these arguments improper on a general demurrer.  The Court finds that the XC sufficiently alleges the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress and therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the second cause of action.

            Plaintiff is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

 Dated this 21st day of July 2023