Aiding and abetting is a form of derivative liability. Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 566.
A defendant is liable for aiding and abetting if the person:
Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144; see also Gov’t Code, § 12940(i).
Aiding and abetting cannot be imposed on a party who is the alleged discriminator, retaliator, etc. Navarrete v. Mayer (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276 (aider and abettor liability imposes liability on a person who did not personally cause the harm to plaintiff).
Mere knowledge and the failure to prevent it do not constitute aiding and abetting. Austin B. v. Escondido Union School District (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 879. Failing to act is insufficient for aiding and abetting under FEHA:
“A failure to act is a far cry from providing substantial assistance and conflates an ‘aiding and abetting’ claim with a claim brought under Cal. Gov.Code § 12940(k), which makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Ortiz v. Georgia Pacific (E.D. Cal. 2013) 973 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1184.
It requires the defendant “to reach a conscious decision to participate in tortious activity for the purpose of assisting another in performing a wrongful act.” Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 823 n.10.
It applies to joint tortfeasors. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 823 n.10.
Note, individuals who are not themselves employers cannot be sued under FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts, nor for claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663-664.
And “liability cannot be imposed upon the State under the aiding and abetting provisions of FEHA...” Vernon v. State (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 132.
A supervisor’s mere knowledge that harassment is taking place and failure to prevent it is not “aiding and abetting.” (Id. at 1326.) A non-harassing supervisor who fails to take action to prevent harassment is not personally liable for harassment under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser, an aider and abettor of the employer, or an agent of the employer. (Id. at p. 1331.) P. Sieveke has set forth facts showing that P. Sieveke was not Plaintiff’s employer and that P.
Oct 05, 2020
Orange County, CA
Seventh Cause of Action—“Aiding and Abetting” Finally, the seventh cause of action for “aiding and abetting” is not well thought out. “Aiding and abetting” applies only when the conduct aided and abetted is an intentional tort. (Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860) As stated supra, the cause of action for IIED is defective. In addition, “aiding and abetting” lies only where a plaintiff seeks to hold joint tortfeasors liable. (Casey v. U.S. Bank. Nat.
Dec 12, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Fresno County, CA
Jin and Hakka only) Breach of Implied Duty to Perform with Reasonable Care (by Liu only) Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (by Yang only) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Government Code § 12940(j) (by Yang only) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of Government Code § 12940(k) (by Yang only) Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment by Nonemployee in Violation of Government Code § 12940(j) (by Yang only) Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment in Violation
Aug 02, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Second and Fifth COAs: Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Janice Drake and Linda Sandler) Cross-defendants argue that the aiding and abetting claim against Janice Drake and Linda Sandler fails because the cross-complaint alleges no facts suggesting that they had actual knowledge of their spouses’ (Michael Drake and Hal Sandler, respectively) alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
Mar 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Second and Fifth COAs: Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Janice Drake and Linda Sandler) Cross-defendants argue that the aiding and abetting claim against Janice Drake and Linda Sandler fails because the cross-complaint alleges no facts suggesting that they had actual knowledge of their spouses’ (Michael Drake and Hal Sandler, respectively) alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
Mar 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The SAC relies on a conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories as to Defendant. (SAC, ¶ 271.) Under American Master Lease, LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, at 1473-1478, the SAC does not adequately allege conspiracy or aiding and abetting liability against Defendant. Therefore, the court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Demurrer to the fourteenth cause of action.
Oct 01, 2019
Orange County, CA
The SAC relies on a conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories as to Defendant. (SAC, ¶ 271.) Under American Master Lease, LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, at 1473-1478, the SAC does not adequately allege conspiracy or aiding and abetting liability against Defendant. Therefore, the court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Demurrer to the fourteenth cause of action.
Oct 29, 2019
Orange County, CA
Specifically, the court of appeal found that the following communications constitute conduct or communication in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest, which support the claims for retaliation (first cause of action against Union), aiding and abetting retaliation (sixth cause of action against individual defendants), and to the extent relied upon, the claim for failure to prevent discrimination and harassment (fifth cause of action against Union): 1.
Feb 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, a defendant can be held liable for aiding and abetting "only if [he] knew that a tort had been, or was to be, committed, and acted with the intent of facilitating the commission of that tort." Id. The "mere failure to act does not constitute the giving of substantial assistance or encouragement to the tortfeasor." Austin B. v. Escondido Union School District (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 860, 879.
Nov 30, 2016
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Direct Liability for Aiding Bassinne Pursuant to Civil Code §52(b), whoever aides another to deny plaintiff the right to enjoy her relationship free from sexual harassment is civilly liable for damages. Since the statute does not define what it means to “aid” someone, the best approach is to apply the usual test for aiding and abetting.
Nov 14, 2019
Orange County, CA
Additionally, Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence under the second prong re: tenant harassment, aiding and abetting. Defendants' counsel is sanctioned $900 to be paid to the Court within 10 days. Defendants' counsel after originally filing this motion in improper department with full knowledge of such impropriety (See March 27, 2014 order), failed to comply with the Court's order and deliver courtesy copies to department 501 per May 7, 2014 order. = (501/PHA - LATE TENTATIVE)
May 20, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
(Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 37) The Court concludes that disclosing accused employees' performance reviews and evaluations to Plaintiffs seeking to use them to attack the credibility of those individuals and to support causes of action against them for sexual harassment and against the employer for aiding and abetting the employees' alleged sexual harassment would be a serious invasion of the accused employees' rights of privacy.
Aug 31, 2017
Employment
Wrongful Term
San Diego County, CA
Liability for aiding and abetting an intentional tort will only lie against the District if it had actual knowledge of Sutton's conduct, and, it nevertheless gave her substantial assistance or encouragement to assault Plaintiff. E.F. Delano v. Joint Union High School District 2016 WL 5846998 (E.D. Cal.
Jan 24, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Finally, Defendants argue that the remaining claims for civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting fail because it was merely fulfilling its obligations under the FEHA. As this argument lacks merit, Defendants’ demurrer to these claims is OVERRULED. Footnote 1: See Lefebvre v. Lefebvre (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 696 [holding that because wife’s report to police re: abuse by her husband was admittedly false and therefore illegal, it did not constitute protected activity under the SLAPP statute].)
Jul 17, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
PESCI and JIM PESCI (collectively “Defendants” ) demur to the following causes of action: Eighth Cause of Action – Negligence; Ninth Cause of Action – Sexual Battery; Tenth Cause of Action – Sexual Assault; Eleventh Cause of Action – Gender Violence; Twelfth Cause of Action – Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment; Thirteenth Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Fourteenth Cause of Action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Feb 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Bank National Ass'n (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145—“California courts have long held that liability for aiding and abetting depends on proof the defendant had actual knowledge of the specific primary wrong the defendant substantially assisted.”) However, plaintiffs have alleged that defendants had received reports from numerous sources concerning Dr. Chaudhry’s routine misconduct which was likely to be present in treating Mr.
Jun 21, 2017
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fresno County, CA
(B) Aiding and Abetting Defendants also assert that Ni has improperly comingled a cause of action for aiding and abetting with the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. “California has adopted the common law rule for subjecting a defendant to liability for aiding and abetting a tort.
Jul 08, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of the following issues: (1) the Sellers’ failure to disclose a material defect; and (2) the Sellers’ “aiding and abetting” the Agent/Broker’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. (MSJ, p. 1, ll. 5-13.) Plaintiff asks that the Court find liability and leave the amount of damages and statutory penalties to be determined at trial.
Nov 20, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Code § 510; (4) Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5; (5) adverse action in violation of public policy; (6) California Family Rights Act; (7) discrimination; (8) retaliation; (9) failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (10) Labor Code § 6310; and (11) FEHA aiding and abetting. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh against Dignity. Plaintiff also dismissed the action as to Defendant Bernal.
Feb 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The case cited by the Scullins is for inducing breach of contract, not aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims. This cause of action in the SAC has been pleaded as an aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim and will be addressed as such: Defendants may not redefine the cause of action to suit their argument. Counsel should be aware, however, that the Court is acutely aware of the principle stated in Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.
Mar 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
only); (5) making discriminatory statements in violation of Government Code section 12955, subdivision (c); (6) discrimination by a person whose business involves real estate transactions in violation of Government Code section 12955, subdivision (i); (7) aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12955, subdivision (g); (8) housing discrimination in violation of Civil Code section 51; (9) unlawful business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200;
Jun 20, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
The instant case was initiated on September 22, 2015, with causes of action for discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in good faith interative process, and failure to prevent discrimination (“Schmittle I”). The complaint in Schmittle II was filed on December 4, 2017, asserting causes of action for retaliation and aiding and abetting relating to events that occurred after the filing of Schmittle I. The two cases were related on April 17, 2018.
May 31, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
.; Dignity Health, Inc. and Shannon Bernal including (1) defamation; (2) Violation of Health and Safety Code §1278.5; (3) Business and Professions Code §510; (4) Labor Code §98.6 and 1102.5; (5) Adverse Action in Violation of Public Policy; (6) California Family Rights Act; (7) Discrimination; (8) Retaliation; (9) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks; (10) Labor Code §6310; and (11) FEHA Aiding and Abetting.
Aug 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
This evidence is insufficient to raise a reasonable inference that moving defendant had knowledge that the reason for the eviction was anything other than non-payment of rent or refusal to allow access to the apartment as the complaint alleged, such that opening the escrow account or making the calls to plaintiff to determine when the money held in escrow could be distributed can be evidence of aiding and abetting discrimination by other defendants.
Oct 07, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
A defendant is liable for aiding and abetting another in the commission of an intentional tort, if the defendant knows the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act. (Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144.)
Mar 23, 2018
Donna Fields Goldstein or Benny C. Osorio
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
