Novak v. Merced Police Department, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 10 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/21/2014. Amended Complaint due within twenty-eight (28) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

NANCY JUNE NOVAK,

11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1402 AWI BAM

Plaintiff

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.
MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

(Doc. No. 10)

Defendants

16
17

This case arises out of a confrontation between Plaintiff Nancy Novak (“Novak”), who is a

18

psychiatric nurse at a Merced County mental health unit, and members of the Merced Police

19

Department and two employees of a private care company during an attempted Welfare and

20

Institutions Code § 5150 (hereinafter “§ 5150”) admission of a mentally retarded individual.

21

Defendants Joella Brewer (“Brewer”), Christina Trigg (“Trigg”), The Mentor Network

22

(“Mentor”), Loyd‟s Liberty Homes, Inc. (“Loyd”), and Care Meridian, LLC (“Meridian”)

23

(collectively the “Home Defendants”) have filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all of the

24

claims alleged against them. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss will be granted.

25
26

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

27

Novak was a Psychiatric Staff Nurse II at the Marie Green Psychiatric Center Inpatient

28

Unit (“MGPC”), which is part of the County of Merced‟s Department of Mental Health Crisis

1

Stabilization Unit. MGPC provides outpatient assessment treatment services for individuals who

2

require urgent mental health services or for individuals with acute mental illness. MGPC admits

3

persons who are unable to care for themselves because of a mental problem or for reasons under

4

Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150. However, individuals who have an overriding medical

5

problem or concern will be medically cleared first at Mercy Merced Community Hospital before

6

admission to MGPC.

7

Mentor provides medical services, including in-home care for patients that need such

8

services. Loyd provides residential care for physically disabled or injured individuals. Trigg and

9

Brewer are employed by either or both Mentor and Loyd.

10

On September 1, 2012, it appears that Defendant Officer Rasmussen (“Rasmussen”)

11

responded to a call for assistance at Mentor and/or Loyd. Rasmussen assisted with T.E., a

12

medically problematic patient at Mentor/Loyd. T.E. was physically restrained because of his

13

retardation, aggressive actions towards other patients and staff at Mentor/Loyd, epileptic seizures,

14

and other physical problems. T.E. was physically violent. Trigg and Brewer were told by a nurse

15

from Mentor and/or Loyd to take T.E. to be admitted to MGPC pursuant to § 5150. Accordingly,

16

Trigg and Brewer took T.E. to MGPC strapped inside a van, and Rasmussen followed in his police

17

patrol vehicle.

18

Upon arrival at MGPC, Novak determined that T.E. was not being admitted because of

19

mental health problems, but because of physical violence and physical problems, including

20

seizures and other intracranial pressure problems. It appears that because of this determination,

21

Novak told Rasmussen that she would not be admitting T.E. Rasmussen became very belligerent

22

and confrontational with Novak, and then called Defendant Sgt. Struble (“Struble”). Struble

23

demanded that Novak, as the admitting nurse of MGPC, admit T.E. Novak continued to explain

24

that because of T.E.‟s physical injuries and problems, he should be taken to the hospital because

25

MGPC is unable to manage someone who is having physical problems (as opposed to someone

26

who is having mental problems). Trigg and Brewer wanted to have T.E. admitted to MGPC and

27

wanted T.E. to have a complete medical examination and workup. Trigg and Brewer

28

misrepresented the physical conditions and disabilities that afflicted T.E.
2

1

Novak explained that MGPC did not have the ability or capability to do a physical exam or

2

admit patients with physical problems, and that T.E. could not be admitted. After Rasmussen,

3

Trigg, and Brewer continued to verbally and physically harass Novak and demand that T.E. be

4

admitted to MGPC, Novak said that she would call the medical director, Dr. Manuel. Dr. Manuel

5

told Novak that MGPC could not admit or handle T.E. Novak advised Rasmussen, who had been

6

acting verbally and physically hostile towards Novak, that Dr. Manuel would not allow the

7

admission of T.E. Rasmussen responded that Struble had said that MGPC was required to admit

8

T.E. based on Struble‟s determination of T.E.‟s medical problems. Struble, Rasmussen, Trigg,

9

and Brewer continued to unlawfully demand that Novak admit T.E.

10

Novak offered to let Dr. Manuel speak with Struble and Rasmussen, and informed

11

Rasmussen that it would be illegal to admit T.E., that Dr. Manuel was prohibiting the admission,

12

and that it would be illegal to accept T.E. if he had physical problems that were not due to a

13

mental health issue. Rasmussen informed Novak that Struble would speak to Dr. Manuel, and

14

referred to Dr. Manuel as a man. Novak informed Rasmussen that Dr. Manuel was a woman and

15

then remarked that it seemed Rasmussen was making sexist remarks about Dr. Manuel.

16

Rasmussen then yelled at Novak to “back up.” The hostility and physical threat of

17

violence by Rasmussen caused Novak to freeze. Rasmussen then grabbed Novak and threw her

18

face down on the trunk of his patrol car. Novak objected to this excessive force and attempted to

19

turn around to talk to Rasmussen. Novak asked numerous times whether she was under arrest, but

20

instead of verbally responding, Rasmussen increased the physical force of holding Novak down on

21

the trunk. Novak experienced difficulty breathing. Novak yelled for help to a co-worker.

22

Rasmussen then ordered Novak to get on the ground and refused to answer whether she was under

23

arrest. Rasmussen then slammed Novak to the ground on her knees, and then forced her head onto

24

the asphalt. Rasmussen‟s actions caused Novak to temporarily lose consciousness. At no point

25

did Novak resist Rasmussen. Nevertheless, Rasmussen then punched Novak in her stomach.

26

During this episode, Novak urinated on herself. Rasmussen appears to have then placed Novak in

27

his patrol vehicle.

28

Struble and Defendant Officer Chavez then arrived. Novak tried to inform the officers that
3

1

she was bleeding and had other wounds inflicted by Rasmussen. Chavez came to Novak,

2

informed Novak that she was to sign a citation and that she was being arrested for resisting an

3

officer. Chavez said that if Novak would not sign the citation, she would be taken and booked

4

into the Merced County Jail.

5

Chavez ordered Novak out of the patrol car. Novak was unable to stand up and told

6

Chavez that her back was killing her. Struble later came over and informed Novak that he wanted

7

to take photos of her injuries. Various photos were taken of Novak, including Novak handcuffed,

8

in the patrol vehicle, and outside the patrol vehicle. While Struble was taking photos, Novak

9

asked if a coworker could also take photos. Struble said no. Novak then asked for copies of the

10
11

photos, to which Struble said that Novak would have to get an attorney if she wanted copies.
After speaking with Struble, Novak walked back into MGPC bent-over, and it was about

12

30 minutes until she could straighten her back and sit in a chair. Despite the requirements of

13

§ 5150, at no time did Rasmussen, Struble, Chavez, Trigg, or Brewer provide any written

14

documentation detailing the factual circumstances and observations that constituted probable

15

cause for these Defendants to believe that T.E. required psychiatric evaluation pursuant to § 5150.

16
17

RULE 12(b)(6) FRAMEWORK

18

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed because of the

19

plaintiff‟s “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A

20

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the

21

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar,

22

646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011); Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121

23

(9th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact are

24

taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT

25

Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013); Johnson, 534 F.3d at 1121. However,

26

complaints that offer no more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the

27

elements of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Dichter-Mad Family

28

Partners. LLP v. United States, 709 F.3d 749, 761 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court is not required "to
4

1

accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or

2

unreasonable inferences.” Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1145 n. 4 (9th Cir.

3

2012); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). To avoid a Rule

4

12(b)(6) dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

5

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see Bell Atl. Corp. v.

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

7

pleads factual content that allows the court draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

8

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Dichter-Mad, 709 F.3d at 761.

9

“Plausibility” means “more than a sheer possibility,” but less than a probability, and facts that are

10

“merely consistent” with liability fall short of “plausibility.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Li v. Kerry,

11

710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013). The Ninth Circuit has distilled the following principles from

12

Iqbal and Twombly: (1) to be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or

13

counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient

14

allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself

15

effectively; (2) the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement

16

to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of

17

discovery and continued litigation. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). In

18

assessing a motion to dismiss, courts may consider documents attached to the complaint,

19

documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice. Dichter-Mad,

20

709 F.3d at 761. Facts raised for the first time in opposition papers should be considered by the

21

court in determining whether to grant leave to amend or to dismiss the complaint with or without

22

prejudice. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). If a motion to dismiss is

23

granted, “[the] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading

24

was made . . . .” Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1005 (9th Cir. 2012). However, leave to

25

amend need not be granted if amendment would be futile or if the plaintiff has failed to cure

26

deficiencies despite repeated opportunities. See Mueller v. Aulker, 700 F.3d 1180, 1191 (9th Cir.

27

2012); Telesaurus VPC. LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010).

28
5

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

1
2

1.

Conspiracy Allegation

3

Defendants’ Argument

4

The Complaint alleges that a conspiracy existed among the Defendants to cause harm and

5

injury to Novak. Conspiracy rests on the commission of a tort and actual knowledge that the tort

6

will occur with the intent that the tort does occur. Here, the only actual allegations of wrongdoing

7

by Trigg and Brewer are that they did not have probable cause paperwork under § 5150, they

8

made misrepresentations to Novak about T.E.‟s physical condition and disabilities, and that they

9

harassed Novak and demanded that T.E. be admitted. However, none of these allegations reflect

10

tortious behavior. First, not having paperwork filled out prior to arrival is not unlawful, as

11

§ 5150.2 contemplates that the officer after admission of a subject may detain that subject long

12

enough to fill out the required paperwork. Second, other medical opinions are sought regularly,

13

and a mere disagreement about a diagnosis does not mean that Trigg and Brewer were making

14

fraudulent misrepresentations. Novak had no previous interaction with Trigg or Brewer and knew

15

nothing of their training or experience. Moreover, no specific misrepresentations are actually

16

identified. The allegations do not create a plausible claim of misrepresentation. Third, use of the

17

word “harass” is a mere legal conclusion. The only facts alleged show an oral disagreement

18

between Novak and Trigg and Brewer, not tortious conduct. In terms of tortious acts by another,

19

there are no allegations that show that Trigg or Brewer had actual knowledge of a planned tort or

20

that they concurred in a tortious scheme with knowledge of an unlawful purpose. No allegations

21

indicate that either Trigg or Brewer intended to aid in the commission of an unlawful act, or that

22

Trigg or Brewer shared a common plan with Rasmussen. All that can be fairly said is that Trigg

23

and Brewer were present when Rasmussen allegedly used excessive force. Thus, the allegations

24

of conspiracy are implausible and should be dismissed.

25

In reply, the Home Defendants argue that the declaration of Novak‟s counsel does not

26

support a conclusion that a conspiracy was ever formed. Although there is an indication that

27

Rasmussen suggested that Trigg and Brewer lie, there is nothing to indicate that Trigg and Brewer

28

agreed. The only agreement that is indicated is an agreement between Trigg, Brewer, and
6

1

Rasmussen to transport T.E. to MGCP. However, no illegality under § 5150 is apparent. The

2

complaint alleges that T.E. was mentally retarded and physically violent, and § 5150 allows for

3

the detention of individuals who “as a result of mental disorder” is “a danger to others.” However,

4

even accepting that T.E. did not qualify under § 5150, there is nothing to indicate that Trigg and

5

Brewer knew that T.E. could not be admitted or that they agreed to commit any unlawful acts.

6

Plaintiff’s Opposition

7

Novak argues that the declaration of her attorney shows that she can amend her complaint

8

to allege a conspiracy. Novak argues that she can allege a conspiracy between Rasmussen, other

9

police officers, Trigg, Brewer, and other staff members of Mentor, Meridian, and Loyd to do

10

whatever was necessary, either legal or illegal, to have T.E. admitted to MGCP through § 5150

11

without actually complying with the law. The Defendants knew that they could not admit

12

someone who was not mentally disabled or suffering from a mental disorder to MGPC, that they

13

could not admit a non-ambulatory patient to MGPC, and that they were trying to admit T.E. to

14

MCPC because of understaffing at Mentor, Meridian, and/or Lloyd‟s. Trigg and Brewer gave

15

misstatements to Novak in an effort to get around the requirements of § 5150 and they encouraged

16

and assisted Rasmussen in his tortious conduct towards Novak.

17

Legal Standard

18

The elements of a civil conspiracy under California law are: “(1) formation and operation

19

of the conspiracy and (2) damage resulting to plaintiff (3) from a wrongful act done in furtherance

20

of the common design.” Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1062 (2006). The conspiracy

21

formed must be one to commit a “civil wrong.” Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64, 79 (1987); City of

22

Industry v. City of Fillmore, 198 Cal. App. 4th 191, 212 (2011). Further, the conspiring

23

defendants must have actual knowledge that a tort is planned and concur in the tortious scheme

24

with knowledge of its unlawful purpose. See Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co., 24 Cal.3d 773, 785

25

(1979); Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp., 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1582 (1995). A conspiracy

26

may sometimes be inferred from “the nature of the acts done, the relation to the parties, the

27

interests of the alleged conspirators, and other circumstances.” In re Sunset Bay Assoc., 944 F.2d

28

1503, 1517 (9th Cir. 1991); Wyatt, 24 Cal.3d at 785. However, it is misleading to label a claim as
7

1

one for “conspiracy,” because “conspiracy” is not a cause of action. See Applied Equipment

2

Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503, 510 (1994); Unruh v. Truck Ins. Exch., 7 Cal.3d

3

616, 631 (1972). Instead, conspiracy is a “legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who,

4

although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a

5

common plan or design in its perpetration.” Applied Equipment, 7 Cal.4th at 510; Industry, 198

6

Cal.App.4t h at 211-12. For a conspiracy to engender liability, an actual tort must be committed

7

because a civil conspiracy “does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has

8

been committed resulting in damage.” Applied Equipment, 7 Cal.4th at 510. “By participation in

9

a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other

10

coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy,” and “[i]n this way, a coconspirator incurs tort

11

liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors.” Id. at 511; Industry, 198 Cal.App.4th at 212.

12

Thus, everyone who enters into a civil conspiracy, even if they did not join at the conspiracy‟s

13

inception, “is in law a party to every act previously or subsequently done by any of the others in

14

pursuance of it.” De Vries v. Brumback, 53 Cal.2d 643, 648 (1960); Favila v. Katten Muchin

15

Rosenman LLP, 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 206 (2010). The pleading standards established by Iqbal

16

and Twombly apply to claims of civil conspiracy, and mere conclusory allegations that a

17

conspiracy existed are insufficient. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57, 564; Wisdom v. Katz,

18

2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10339, *3-*4 (9th Cir. May 22, 2013).

19

Discussion

20

Novak‟s opposition is essentially a concession that the Complaint does not adequately

21

allege a conspiracy. As such the Court will dismiss the conspiracy allegation, which is ¶ 34 in the

22

Complaint. In terms of leave to amend, the Court has reviewed and considered the declaration of

23

Novak‟s counsel. The declaration is not entirely clear on certain points, and it does not address all

24

of the elements of a conspiracy. Despite these shortcomings, and based on the arguments made in

25

this motion, it is not clear that amendment would be futile.

26

The declaration indicates that at a minimum Trigg, Brewer, and Rasmussen agreed to

27

attempt to commit T.E. for reasons that do not fit within § 5150. The version of § 5150 in effect

28

in September 2012 provided in part for the 72 hour involuntary admission of an individual who,
8

1

“as a result of a mental disorder, is a danger to others . . . .” Cal. Wel. & Inst. § 5150 (effective

2

June 27, 2012 to June 26, 2013). Although the declaration indicates that T.E. was a danger to

3

others and the Complaint alleges that T.E. was physically violent, there are no allegations that

4

show T.E. was a danger to others as a result of a mental illness. The closest allegation is that T.E.

5

is mentally retarded. However, “mental retardation” is different from “mental illness.” Cramer v.

6

Gillermina R., 125 Cal.App.3d 380, 387-88 (1981). Commitments due to “mental retardation” are

7

not within the purview of § 5150. See Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code §§ 5002, 5008(h)(3); People v.

8

Barrett, 54 Cal.4th 1081, 1108 (2012); People v. Bailie, 144 Cal.App.4th 841, 844-45 (2006);1

9

Cramer, 125 Cal.App.3d at 387-88. The Court cannot agree with Defendants that the allegations

10

and/or representations show that T.E. suffered from a “mental illness.” Further, the declaration

11

indicates that Trigg, Brewer, and Rasmussen wanted to commit T.E. to MGPC because T.E. was a

12

danger to the small number of staff who were present. The implication is that if more or different

13

staff had been present, the danger posed by T.E. would have been manageable. As such, there is a

14

suggestion that the attempt to commit T.E. was based in part on mere staffing problems. Thus, the

15

declaration and the Complaint indicate an agreement to improperly commit T.E. under § 5150.

16

What the declaration does not necessarily allege, however, is that the defendant

17

conspirators knew that it was unlawful to commit T.E. under § 5150, and that the conspirators

18

intended for T.E. to be committed under § 5150 anyway. If the members of the conspiracy do not

19

know that the object of the conspiracy constitutes a civil wrong and intend for the civil wrong to

20

occur, then there is no actionable conspiracy. See Wyatt, 24 Cal.3d at 785; Kidron, 40

21

Cal.App.4th at 1582. If Novak files an amended complaint, she must make allegations consistent

22

with Wyatt and Kidron that demonstrate the required “mens rea” for the conspirators.2
For the above reasons, Novak‟s conspiracy claim will be dismissed with leave to amend.3

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Barrett, 54 Cal.4th 1081, 1109 (2012).

2

Mental states may be alleged generally. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 9(b); Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transp., 879
F.Supp.2d 1138, 1142 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
3

The Court‟s purpose was to determine whether amendment would be futile. The Court did not address every
allegation or contention in the declaration of Novak‟s counsel. By not addressing a particular contention, the Court is
not holding that Novak cannot include such a contention in an amended complaint. Novak may include all facts that
she believes is necessary to properly allege the conspiracy that existed in this case.

9

1

2.

Third & Fifth Causes of Action – Negligence & Negligence Per Se

2

Defendants’ Argument

3

With respect to the third cause of action, the Home Defendants argue that the Complaint

4

alleges that Novak was harmed by contact to her body and by the failure to follow § 5150. As to

5

the first theory, the Complaint does not allege that the Home Defendants ever touched Novak, so

6

there is no liability for the harm caused by physical contact. As to the second theory, no authority

7

is identified that makes a failure to follow § 5150 actionable. Further, the complaint fails to allege

8

how the Home Defendants actually violated § 5150. At most, the Complaint suggests that the

9

Home Defendants did not fill out paperwork. However, such an allegation is conclusory and it

10
11

cannot be said that incomplete paperwork caused any damage to Novak.
With respect to the fifth cause of action, the Home Defendants argue that the Complaint

12

relies on Penal Code § 148, which prohibits obstructing, resisting, or delaying a public officer or

13

emergency medical technician (“EMT”) in the discharge of her duties. However, Novak is not an

14

officer or an EMT, and thus is not covered by § 148. Also, even if § 148 did apply, Trigg and

15

Brewer were not willfully obstructing, resisting, or delaying, rather, they at worst were asserting

16

their First Amendment right to disagree with Novak‟s diagnosis and assessment of T.E. Although

17

officers and EMT‟s may dislike being the object of abusive language, such speech is protected by

18

the First Amendment. There are no allegations that Trigg and Brewer‟s disagreement with Novak

19

ever went beyond the proper exercise of their First Amendment rights.

20

Plaintiff’s Opposition

21

With respect to the third cause of action, Novak argues that there was negligence by Trigg

22

and Brewer in their conspiracy to assist, aid, and abet Rasmussen in his conduct of attacking,

23

harming, and injuring Novak. As for § 5150, a presumption of negligence arises if a defendant

24

violates a statute. Trigg and Brewer violated § 5150 and intentionally provided a statement that

25

was known to be false. Trigg and Brewer‟s violation of § 5150 caused injury through assistance,

26

encouragement, and abetting Rasmussen, which caused Novak‟s physical injuries. The injury was

27

one that was designed by § 5150 to avoid. Novak, as an admitting psychiatric nurse, is one of the

28

class of persons that § 5150 was designed to protect. Mentor, Meridian, and Loyd are vicariously
10

1
2

liable for Trigg and Brewer‟s conduct and violation of § 5150.
With respect to the fifth cause of action, Novak argues that she enjoys the same protection

3

as an EMT because she was working in an emergency situation at MGPC. With such coverage,

4

and considering the conspiracy involved, a plausible claim under § 148 is stated.

5

Legal Standards

6

“Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others. . . .

7

A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in

8

the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same

9

situation.” Raven H. v. Gamette, 157 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1025 (2007). Thus, the elements of

10

actionable negligence are: (1) a legal duty to use due care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation;

11

and (4) damages. See Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 (1996); Brown v.

12

Ransweiler, 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 534 (2009).

13

The doctrine of negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but instead creates an

14

evidentiary presumption. Johnson v. Honeywell Intl., Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555 (2009). As

15

codified in California Evidence Code § 669, negligence per se “allows proof of a statutory

16

violation to create a presumption of negligence in specified circumstances.” Elsner v. Uveges, 34

17

Cal.4th 915, 927 (2004). Evidence Code § 669(a) provides that the “failure of a person to exercise

18

due care is presumed if: (1) he violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) the

19

violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted

20

from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to

21

prevent; and (4) the person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of

22

the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.” Cal.

23

Evid. Code § 669(a); Ramirez v. Nelson, 44 Cal.4th 908, 917-18 (2008); Spriesterbach v. Holland,

24

215 Cal.App.4th 255, 263-64 (2013). Thus, “the plaintiff „borrows‟ statutes to prove duty of care

25

and standard of care,” but “still has the burden of proving causation.” Johnson, 179 Cal.App.4th

26

555-56. The first two elements of negligence per se are normally considered questions for the trier

27

of fact, while the last two elements are determined by the court as a matter of law. See Ramirez,

28

44 Cal.4th at 918; Spriesterbach, 215 Cal.App.4th at 264. If the plaintiff establishes the elements
11

1

of negligence per se, a presumption of negligence is created and the burden then shifts to the

2

defendant to rebut the presumption. See Spriesterbach, 215 Cal.App.4th at 264; Sagadin v.

3

Ripper, 175 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1164-65 (1985). Under California Evidence Code § 669(b), the

4

negligence per se presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the defendant “did what might

5

reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who

6

desired to comply with the law.” Cal. Evid. Code § 669(b)(1); Spriesterbach, 215 Cal.App.4th at

7

264; Sagadin, 175 Cal.App.3d at 1164.

8

Discussion

9

With respect to the negligence claim, Novak argues that Trigg and Brewer were negligent

10

in their conspiracy to harm her. Novak‟s position is far from clear. As the Court reads Novak‟s

11

opposition, Novak is equating the conspiracy with negligence. That is, Novak is saying that Trigg

12

and Brewer breached a duty of care by entering into a conspiracy. However, there is no liability

13

for simply joining a conspiracy, there must be resulting damage from the commission of a tort.

14

See Applied Equipment, 7 Cal.4th at 510. Novak‟s theory would eviscerate this rule. Every time

15

a person enters into a civil conspiracy, they would also instantaneously be negligent. That is not

16

the law. See id. Given the state of the opposition, dismissal of the third cause of action is

17

appropriate. See id.

18
19
20

With respect to the negligence per se theories, two statutes are identified in the Complaint
and the opposition: § 5150 and California Penal Code § 148 (hereinafter “§ 148”).
Section 148 creates a misdemeanor for those who willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a

21

public officer, a peace officer, or an emergency medical technician (“EMT”) in the discharge or

22

attempted discharge of a duty of his or her office or employment. See Cal. Pen. Code § 148(a).

23

As indicated above, one element of negligence per se is that the plaintiff must belong to the class

24

of persons for whose protection the statute was adopted. See Ramirez, 44 Cal.4th at 917-18.

25

Novak argues that it can be inferred from the Complaint that she should enjoy the protections of

26

EMT. While EMT‟s are an expressly identified class of persons who are protected by § 148, the

27

Court disagrees that it can be inferred that Novak should be considered an EMT or receive the

28

protections of an EMT. Section 148(a) refers to § 1790 of the Health and Safety Code as
12

1

providing the definition of an EMT. Health & Safety Code §§ 1797.80, 1797.82, and 1797.84 are

2

the specific sections that appear to provide the definitions of an EMT. There are no allegations in

3

the Complaint that indicate Novak fits into the definitions of any of these three sections. See Cal.

4

Health & Safety Code §§ 1797.80, 1797.82, 1797.84. Further, Novak cites no cases that have

5

extended the classification of EMT‟s to individuals in Novak‟s position. Without more from

6

Novak, it is not reasonable to extend Novak‟s classification to that essentially of an EMT. If

7

Novak is not within the protected class, then she cannot utilize § 148 for negligence per se. See

8

Ramirez, 44 Cal.4th at 917-18.

9

Additionally, assuming that Novak fits within § 148, the Home Defendants are correct that

10

the allegations do not show that Trigg and Brewer violated the statute. At most, what is identified

11

in the Complaint is some sort of verbal confrontation or objections directed at Novak by Trigg and

12

Brewer. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to use abusive language and to

13

verbally criticize, object or challenge officers, irrespective of § 148. See Johnson v. Bay Area

14

Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 2013); In re Muhammed C., 95 Cal.App.4th

15

1325, 1330-31 (2002); People v. Quiroga, 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 (1993); see also Duran v. City

16

of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990). If Novak means to allege that Trigg and

17

Brewer‟s individual acts violated § 148, then more allegations are necessary to show that the First

18

Amendment does not protect Trigg and Brewer‟s speech.

19

As for § 5150, as stated above, that statute in part permits the involuntary admission of an

20

individual for 72 hours if the individual is a danger to himself or to others as a result of a mental

21

disorder. See Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 5150.4 A § 5150 negligence per se claim has not been

22
4

23
24
25
26
27
28

The version of §5150 in effect in September 2012 reads in in its entirety:
When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others or to himself or herself, or gravely
disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated
by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by § 5651.7, or other professional person
designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him
or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Social Services as a facility for
72-hour treatment and evaluation.
The facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person‟s
condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, and stating
that the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is,
as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself, or gravely disabled. If the probable cause is based on
the statement of a person other than the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, the personal
shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement which he or she knows to be false.

13

1

properly pled. First, the Court agrees with the Home Defendants that Novak has not alleged how

2

Trigg and Brewer actually violated § 5150.5

3

misrepresentations, Novak has not explained what the misrepresentations were or how they

4

violated § 5150. Second, the Court has found limited authority that has permitted negligence per

5

se claims to be based on § 5150. See Bock v. County of Sutter, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124699,

6

*44-*46 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012). However, in Bock, a decedent‟s estate alleged a negligence

7

per se claim based on a violation of § 5150 because the decedent had been placed in an

8

unapproved facility. See id. Similarly, California courts have recognized that the Lanterman-

9

Petris-Short Act, of which § 5150 is a part, “must be construed to promote the intent of the

Although the Complaint and opposition mention

10

Legislature, among other things, to end the inappropriate, indefinite and involuntary commitment

11

of mentally disordered persons, to provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and to protect

12

mentally disordered persons.” Jacobs v. Grossmont Hosp., 108 Cal.App.4th 69, 75 (2002);

13

Michael E.L. v. County of San Diego, 183 Cal.App.3d 515, 525 (1983); see Cal. Wel. & Inst.

14

Code § 5001. Case law and the language of the statute indicate that the procedures and protections

15

created by § 5150 are designed to protect those who are to be admitted to an institution, not those

16

who actually admit/commit another to an institution. Here, T.E. appears to be the actor in this

17

case who fits within the class intended to be protected by § 5150, not Novak. The Court has

18

significant doubts that Novak is within the class of persons that § 5150 was designed to protect.

19

Without more from Novak, she does not meet the fourth element of negligence per se.6

20

Because Novak has not shown she fits within a protected class, and it appears at this point

21

that the First Amendment protects Trigg and Brewer, no § 148 negligence per se theory is properly

22

alleged. Further, Novak has not demonstrated how Trigg and Brewer violated § 5150, nor has she

23

demonstrated that she fits within the class of persons whom § 5150 was designed to protect.

24

Accordingly, dismissal of the third and fifth causes of action is appropriate.

25
26
27
28

5

Novak does not confirm that she is relying on a failure to fill out required paperwork, nor does she address the
legitimate argument that the failure to fill out paperwork would not seem to be the proximate cause of her injuries.
6

The Court notes that Novak‟s opposition indicates she meets the second negligence per se element in that Trigg and
Brewer‟s encouragement of Officer caused her injury. However, it is the violation of the statute that must cause the
injury. Ramirez, 44 Cal.4th at 917-18. Encouragement of the officer is not the same as the violation of the statute. If
the violation of the statute did not proximately cause Novak‟s injury, then negligence per se is not applicable. See id.

14

1

3.

Fourth Cause of Action – Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention

2

Defendants’ Argument

3

The Home Defendants argue that only an employer may be held liable for negligent hiring,

4

training, supervision, and/or retention. This cause of action is one for direct liability. Trigg and

5

Brewer are not employers, and thus cannot be liable. As for Mentor, Meridian, and Loyd, the

6

Complaint fails to allege a single act that constitutes a failure to train, supervise, hire, or retain.

7

Thus, the claim is not plausible and should be dismissed.

8

Plaintiff’s Opposition

9

Novak argues that Trigg and Brewer were unfit or incompetent and admitted that they were

10

at a facility that could not maintain or care for T.E. Trigg and Brewer were not licensed or trained

11

to handle or care for a patient like T.E. or to properly assess a patient like T.E. Trigg and Brewer

12

(and possibly an unknown supervisor) conspired to commit T.E. and to harm Novak. The

13

negligence of Mentor, Meridian, and/or Loyd was a substantial factor in harming Novak. Such

14

allegations meet the elements of negligent hiring, training, and supervision.

15

Legal Standard

16

“California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can be liable to a third person

17

for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” Doe v. Capital Cities, 50

18

Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054 (1996); see also Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc., 172 Cal.App.4th 1133,

19

1139 (2009). “Liability for negligent hiring will be imposed on an employer if it knew or should

20

have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm

21

materializes.” Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 815 (2006); Doe, 50

22

Cal.App.4th at 1054. “Liability for negligent supervision and/or retention of an employee is one

23

of direct liability for negligence, not vicarious liability.” Phillips, 172 Cal.App.4th at 1139;

24

Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at 815.

25

Discussion

26

As an initial matter, Novak does not defend this cause of action as to Trigg and Brewer,

27

and the Complaint expressly alleges that Trigg and Brewer are employees of Mentor and/or Loyd.

28

See Complaint ¶¶ 12, 13. The tort of negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention is a direct
15

1

action against an employer. See Phillips, 172 Cal.App.4th at 1139; Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at

2

815. Because Trigg and Brewer are alleged to be employees, they are not employers and cannot

3

be liable under this cause of action. The fourth cause of action will be dismissed with prejudice as

4

to Trigg and Brewer. See id.

5

As for Mentor, Meridian, and Loyd, the Complaint alleges negligent supervision and

6

training regarding the procedures and requirements of § 5150, including dealing with nurses at

7

hospitals. The Complaint also alleges a failure investigate the background of Trigg and Brewer.

8

The Court finds the Complaint‟s allegations inadequate. First, there are no allegations that

9

indicate how Trigg and Brewer were negligently supervised or trained. That is, it is unknown

10

what about their training and supervision was negligent. Second, there are no allegations that

11

indicate why Mentor, Meridian, or Loyd were negligent in their hiring of Trigg and Brewer.

12

Third, liability for this tort arises when an employer knew or should have known of a particular

13

risk and that risk later materializes. See Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at 815. Here, the obvious risk

14

of inadequate training regarding § 5150 would be the improper commitment of a person like T.E.

15

The harm suffered by Novak at the hands of Officer Rasmussen does not appear to be the kind of

16

harm or risk that would be associated with improper training as to § 5150.

17

Dismissal of this cause of action is appropriate.

18
19

5.

Sixth & Seventh Causes of Action – Assault and Battery

20

Defendants’ Argument

21

A careful reading of the Complaint shows that each of the allegations that are relevant to

22

either the assault or battery claims all relate to the police defendants. There are no allegations that

23

relate to or support a claim for either assault or battery against the Home Defendants.

24

Plaintiff’s Opposition

25

Being a co-conspirator or aiding and abetting in the commission of a tort makes one liable

26

for the tort committed. The Home Defendants knew that an assault and/or battery was going to be

27

committed by Rasmussen. Trigg and Brewer gave substantial assistance, abetted, or encouraged

28

Rasmussen. Through the conspiracy, the Home Defendants are liable for Rasmussen‟s conduct.
16

1

Legal Standard

2

A civil battery is “an offensive and intentional touching without the victim‟s consent.”

3

Kaplan v. Mamelak, 162 Cal.App.4th 637, 645 (2008). The elements of a civil battery under

4

California law are: (1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the

5

intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) plaintiff was

6

harmed or offended by defendant‟s conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in plaintiff‟s position

7

would have been offended by the touching. So v. Shin, 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 669 (2013); see also

8

Fluharty v. Fluharty, 59 Cal.App.4th 484, 497 (2004).
A civil assault is a “demonstration of an unlawful intent by one person to inflict immediate

9
10

injury on the person of another then present.” Steel v. City of San Diego, 726 F.Supp.2d 1172,

11

1189 (S.D. Cal. 2010); see Lowry v. Standard Oil Co., 63 Cal.App.2d 1, 6-7 (1944). Civil assault

12

“recognizes the right of the individual to peace of mind, to live without fear of personal harm.”

13

Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644, 649 (1989). The elements of a civil assault under California

14

law are: (1) defendant acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, or threatened to

15

touch plaintiff in a harmful or offensive manner; (2) plaintiff reasonably believed she was about to

16

be touched in a harmful or offensive manner or it reasonably appeared to plaintiff that defendant

17

was about to carry out the threat; (3) plaintiff did not consent to defendant's conduct; (4) plaintiff

18

was harmed; and (5) defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff‟s harm. So,

19

212 Cal.App.4th at 669.

20

Discussion

21

There are no allegations that either Trigg or Brewer touched Novak or caused Novak to be

22

in fear of an imminent touch. Thus, there is nothing to support “direct liability” against Trigg and

23

Brewer for these claims. Instead, Novak is relying on the conspiracy allegation. However, as

24

discussed above, the Complaint fails to allege a plausible conspiracy between Trigg and Brewer

25

and Rasmussen.7 Because the conspiracy allegation is being dismissed, it is appropriate to dismiss

26

the assault and battery claims as well.

27

7

28

Relatedly, and contrary to the opposition, the allegations do not indicate Trigg and Brewer knew that a battery or
assault would occur against Novak. Further, the Court notes that Novak throughout her opposition classifies the
conspiracy as one to do whatever it takes to commit T.E. However, that allegation is not found in the complaint.

17

1

6.

Eighth Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”)

2

Defendants’ Argument

3

The sum of the alleged facts against Trigg and Brewer are that they tried to admit T.E.

4

without properly filled out paperwork, that they disagreed and argued with Novak about whether

5

T.E. should be admitted, and that they witnessed the altercation between Officer Rasmussen and

6

Novak. None of this conduct amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct that exceeds the bounds

7

decency. Without extreme and outrageous conduct, there is not liability for IIED.

8

Plaintiff’s Opposition

9

Novak argues that when Trigg and Brewer agreed with Rasmussen to do whatever was

10

needed to have T.E. admitted, they assisted, abetted, and worked with Rasmussen in causing

11

severe emotional distress to Novak. The conduct was outrageous because they encouraged and

12

assisted Rasmussen in attacking a defenseless nurse. Trigg and Brewer lied, misrepresented, and

13

made false statements in violation of § 5150. Trigg and Brewer conspired to entice and induce

14

Rasmussen into committing acts against Novak. Trigg and Brewer were more than bystanders.

15

Legal Standard

16

The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") are: (1)

17

extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intention of causing, or

18

reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff's suffering

19

severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional

20

distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050 (2009);

21

Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001 (1993). “„Severe emotional distress‟

22

means emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable person

23

in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.” Hughes, 46 Cal.4th at 1051; Potter, 6

24

Cal.4th at 1004. Conduct is “extreme and outrageous” when it is “so extreme as to exceed all

25

bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” Hughes, 46 Cal.4th at 1050; Potter, 6

26

Cal.4th at 1001. Evidence that reflects “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty

27

oppressions, or other trivialities” is insufficient. Hughes, 46 Cal.4th at 1051.

28
18

1

Discussion

2

Novak‟s IIED claim has not been properly pled. The outrageous conduct identified in the

3

opposition is little more than the conspiracy itself. The problem is that a conspiracy by itself, no

4

matter how repugnant, is not actionable. See Applied Equipment, 7 Cal.4th at 510. The

5

Complaint does not identify actions by Trigg or Brewer that can be legitimately characterized as

6

“extreme and outrageous.” Entering a conspiracy, and offering some unspecified type of verbal

7

encouragement, is not enough. Furthermore, if Novak is relying on the assault and battery torts

8

allegedly committed by Officer Rasmussen, more is needed. Although the situation is not that

9

typically associated with an assault and battery, it does not seem so far removed from a typical

10

assault and battery that it would also support an IIED claim. Because the conduct pled is not

11

sufficiently extreme and outrageous, dismissal of this claim is appropriate. Cf. Hughes, 46 Cal.4th

12

at 1051.

13
14

7.

Ninth Cause of Action – False Imprisonment/False Arrest

15

Defendants’ Argument

16

The Complaint alleges that Novak was forcibly and falsely arrested and imprisoned by

17

Officer Rasmussen, but there are no facts stated against the Home Defendants that relate to the

18

elements of the tort. Instead, there are only insufficient legal conclusions made. Thus, no valid

19

cause of action is pled.

20

Plaintiff’s Opposition

21

Novak argues that the Home Defendants are liable for this claim through the conspiracy

22

that was formed to aid, assist, and/or abet Rasmussen.

23

Legal Standard

24

“„False arrest‟ and „false imprisonment‟ are not separate torts,” rather “[f]alse arrest is but

25

one way of committing a false imprisonment.” Asgari v. City of Los Angeles, 15 Cal.4th 744, 752

26

n.3 (1994). The tort of false imprisonment consists of the “'nonconsensual, intentional

27

confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however

28

short.” Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 701, 715 (1994); Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles,
19

1

203 Cal.App.4th 947, 962 (2012). A person may be constrained or confined in various ways,

2

including physical force, threat of force or of arrest, confinement by physical barriers, or by means

3

of any other form of unreasonable duress. Fermino, 7 Cal.4th at 715. A police officer is not

4

civilly liable for a false arrest if at the time of arrest the officer “had reasonable cause to believe

5

that the arrest was lawful.” Cal. Pen. Code § 847(b); O‟Toole v. Superior Ct., 140 Cal.App.4th

6

488, 511 (2006); see also Edgerly v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 599 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir.

7

2010). “Reasonable cause” is determined through an objective test that asks whether the facts

8

known to the arresting officer would lead a reasonable person to have a strong suspicion of the

9

arestee‟s guilt. See O‟Toole, 140 Cal.App.4th at 511; see also Levin v. United Air Lines, Inc., 158

10

Cal.App.4t h 1002, 1018 (2008).

11

Discussion

12

There are no allegations that Trigg or Brewer even touched Novak, much less restricted her

13

movements in any way. This cause of action rises and falls with the conspiracy allegation.

14

Because the conspiracy allegation is being dismissed, this cause of action also will be dismissed.

15
16

8.

Tenth Cause of Action – Civil Code § 52.1

17

Defendants’ Argument

18

The Complaint alleges that the tortious conduct described in the previous causes of action

19

constitute a violation of California Constitution Art. I § 13, which protects citizens against

20

unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the only acts of any defendant that could be

21

interpreted as coercive, intimidating, or threatening were done by Officer Rasmussen. There are

22

no allegations that the Home Defendants ever knew about or concurred with any threats,

23

intimidation or coercion by any Co-Defendant. Moreover, only Rasmussen‟s use of force is

24

arguably tortious. The actual use of force is not a threat, intimidation or coercion, because those

25

concepts relate to a negative consequence that will happen in the future. The use of force by

26

Rasmussen was in the present and had no future implications.

27

Plaintiff’s Opposition

28

Novak argues that a § 52.1 claim may be based on coercion, which includes threats or
20

1

violence against a person. As alleged, Rasmussen used violence against Novak. Given the

2

conspiracy between Rasmussen and Trigg and Brewer, the Home Defendants are liable.

3

Legal Standard

4

The essence of a § 52.1 claim is that “the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e.,

5

“threats, intimidation or coercion”), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from doing something he

6

or she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that he or she was

7

not required to do under the law.” Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal.4th 329, 334 (1998); Shoyoye v.

8

County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal.App.4th 947, 955-56 (2012). Civil Code section 52.1 requires

9

“an attempted or completed act of interference with a legal right, accompanied by a form of

10

coercion.” Jones, 17 Cal.4th at 334; Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist., 149 Cal.App.4th

11

860, 882 (2007). A § 52.1 plaintiff need not allege the defendant acted with discriminatory

12

animus or intent, rather a defendant is liable if he or she interfered with the plaintiff‟s legal or

13

constitutional rights by the requisite threats, intimidation, or coercion. See Venegas v. County of

14

Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820, 841-43 (2004); Austin B., 149 Cal.App.4th at 882. The word

15

“interferes” as used in the Bane Act means “violates.” Jones, 17 Cal.4th at 334; Austin B., 149

16

Cal.App.4th at 883.

17

Discussion

18

Jones makes clear that either an attempted or completed act of interference will suffice

19

under § 52.1. Jones, 17 Cal.4th at 334. It is unclear why an act of violence could not constitute a

20

completed act of coercion. As long as the act of violence violates a plaintiff‟s rights, the violence

21

would be actionable under § 52.1. See Austin B., 149 Cal.App.4th at 883 (holding that there was

22

“no evidence of acts that could be construed as threats, violence or intimidation that actually

23

caused a loss of [plaintiff‟s] right to an education or that attempted to do so.”); cf. Bender v.

24

County of Los Angeles, 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 978-79 (2013) (holding that an unlawful arrest

25

coupled with excessive force constituted coercion under § 52.1); Shoyoye, 203 Cal.App.4th at 959

26

(“While we are not prepared to and need not decide that every plaintiff must allege violence or

27

threats of violence in order to maintain an action under § 52.1, we conclude that the multiple

28

references to violence or threats of violence in the statute serve to establish the unmistakable tenor
21

1

of the conduct that § 52.1 is meant to address.”). Without authority to the contrary identified by

2

the Home Defendants, the Court disagrees that violence cannot establish a violation of § 52.1.

3

That being said, there are no allegations that Trigg and Brewer committed any acts of violence,

4

intimidation, threats, or other forms of coercion against Novak. Instead, this claim appears to be

5

based on the conspiracy allegation. Like other claims that are based on the conspiracy, because

6

the conspiracy claim is being dismissed, Novak‟s § 52.1 claim will also be dismissed.

7
8

9.

Respondeat Superior Liability of Mentor, Meridian, and Loyd

9

The Court has resolved all of the state law claims alleged against Trigg and Brewer. With

10

the exception of the fourth cause of action, Novak relies on respondeat superior to make Mentor,

11

Meridian, and Loyd liable for the conduct of Trigg and Brewer. Under a respondeat superior

12

theory, an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts committed by its employee within the

13

course and scope of employment. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem. Hosp., 12 Cal.4th 291,

14

296 (1995). However, an employer cannot be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior

15

unless the employee is found responsible, and a finding that exonerates the employee also

16

exonerates the employer. See Lathrop v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, 114 Cal.App.4th

17

1412, 1423 (2004); Perez v. City of Huntington Park, 7 Cal.App.4th 817, 819-20 (1992). Here,

18

because there are no viable claims pled against Trigg and Brewer, Mentor, Meridian, and Loyd

19

cannot be held liable under respondeat superior.

20
21
22

CONCLUSION
As discussed above, dismissal of each of the causes of action alleged against the Home

23

Defendants is appropriate. The Court has doubts and concerns about certain causes of action, but

24

with one exception, it is not clear to the Court that amendment would necessarily be futile. If

25

Novak can file an amended complaint that is consistent with the analyses of this order and Rule

26

11, then she may do so. The one exception is the negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim

27

alleged against Trigg and Brewer. Because Trigg and Brewer are not employers, dismissal of this

28

claim will be with prejudice.
22

1

ORDER

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Defendants‟ motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

4

2.

The second through tenth causes of action are DISMISSED with leave to amend, except

5

for the fourth cause of action against Trigg and Brewer which is DISMISSED with

6

prejudice;

7

3.

8
9

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this
order; and

4.

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, then the Court will order the Clerk to

10

terminate Defendants Trigg, Brewer, Mentor, Meridian, and Loyd as defendants in this

11

matter.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23