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.
Aiding and Abetting Plaintiff argues Jeon was an aider and abettor. Jeon’s liability as aider and abettor may ultimately be proven if the facts alleged in the SAC are found to be true: that Jeon was informed of Im’s conduct by Plaintiff’s mother, that Jeon assisted Im by joining the civil harassment order which prevented Plaintiff’s mother from looking for Plaintiff near the Church grounds; and that Jeon’s conduct caused Plaintiff harm by preventing her rescue.
Apr 19, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 389 [holding aid-and-abet liability adequately alleged as to a FEHA claim].) The court agrees with Humber that Plaintiffs do not allege that they were ever in a direct business relationship with any party save CFPA. However, the court agrees with Plaintiffs that they have adequately alleged liability by virtue of aiding and abetting the alleged discriminatory conduct.
Aug 02, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer
Los Angeles County, CA
On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) discrimination based on disability, (2) failure to prevent discrimination, (3) failure to accommodate, (4) aiding and abetting discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) wrongful discharge, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Jun 21, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant argues that the aiding and abetting allegations are insufficiently pled.
Apr 04, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
However, the same is not with respect to an aiding and abetting theory of liability because that theory does not presuppose that the aider and abettor is legally capable of committing the tort. As a result, Weinbaum does not stand for the proposition that a non-employer cannot be sued for aiding and abetting a Tameny claim. Second, Redpoint’s alleged wrongful conduct was not confined to finalizing Plaintiff’s discharge but also includes threatening Plaintiff with termination and stripping her of equity.
Jun 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Additionally, Plaintiff’s “aiding and abetting” theory is unpersuasive. To establish this theory, Plaintiff must show that Management Company Defendants: (1) breached fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff by a third party; (2) had actual knowledge of that breach of fiduciary duties; (3) substantially assisted or encouraged the third party’s breach; and (4) actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. (Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 328, 343.)
Aug 13, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Code section 12955, subdivision (c); (6) discrimination by a person whose business involves real estate transactions under Government Code section 12955, subdivision (i); (7) aiding and abetting discrimination under Government Code section 12955, subdivision (g); (8) Unruh Act housing discrimination under Civil Code section 51; (9) unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200; (10) negligence; and (11) vicarious liability.
May 31, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Sirott claims that 400 Taylor could have been exposed to liability for aiding and abetting in the usurpation of the business opportunity of CRTC if it had considered the Lease Proposal. Plaintiffs assert this argument is without merit since the elements for aiding and abetting could not have been met. There is no way 400 Taylor could have had the requisite actual knowledge of a breach of fiduciary duty when the Lease Proposal was made.
Oct 01, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
On July 15, 2020, Olson filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which asserts causes of action for (1) voidable transfer based actual intent, (2) voidable transfer during or resulting in insolvency, (3) voidable transfer based upon lack of equivalent value, (4) fraud on creditors, (5) declaratory relief, (6) constructive trust, (7) cancellation of written instruments, (8) aiding and abetting violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, (9) Penal Code § 496, and (10) unjust enrichment.
Sep 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1854–1855 [“a party may present a motion for summary adjudication challenging a separate and distinct wrongful act even though combined with other wrongful acts alleged in the same cause of action.”] 2nd cause of action for negligence is appropriately conceded and granted. 3rd cause of action for FEHA retaliation is denied; 4th cause of action for FEHA aiding and abetting is appropriately conceded and granted. 5th cause of action for FEHA failure to prevent
Oct 09, 2020
San Joaquin 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): [Court of Appeal Decision, p. 13-20]
Mar 13, 2020
Los Angeles 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): [Court of Appeal Decision, p. 13-20]
Jul 14, 2017
Los Angeles 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): [Court of Appeal Decision, p. 13-20]
Jan 31, 2020
Los Angeles 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): [Court of Appeal Decision, p. 13-20]
Oct 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
An individual can be held liable for a cause of action through the theory of aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting requires (1) the person know ‘the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act or (b) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the person’s own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person.” Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1326.
Jul 06, 2018
Riverside County, CA
(“D’Oro”) for: (1) breach of fiduciary duties against xxxxxxx; (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against Lupe Powell; (3) fraud-concealment against xxxxxxx; (4) aiding and abetting fraud-concealment against Lupe Powell; (5) constructive fraud against xxxxxxx; (6) aiding and abetting constructive fraud against xxxxxxx; (7) unfair business practice against xxxxxxx and D’Oro; and (8) accounting against xxxxxxx.
Jan 16, 2019
Los Angeles 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): [Court of Appeal Decision, p. 13-20]
Nov 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
D. 9th COA: Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duties The Weintraub parties argue that the 9th cause of action fails for two reasons. Because the first argument is dispositive, the Court declines to consider the second argument. The 9th cause of action alleges that the Weintraub Cross-Defendants aided and abetted the officers and directors of GDBC (Douglas and Estrella Harrington) in breaching their fiduciary duties to Khoury.
May 09, 2019
Orange County, CA
The allegations about a conspiracy and aiding and abetting appear to be too conclusory and insufficient to overcome the defect. (See SAC ¶80, 82). On a demurrer, the pleading’s contentions and conclusions are generally disregarded. (See WA Southwest 2, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 148, 151). To allege a conspiracy, “such allegations bare legal conclusions, inferences, generalities, presumptions, and conclusions are insufficient”. (State of California ex rel. Metz v.
Aug 24, 2020
Orange County, CA
The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of Penal Code § 502 (computer crimes), receipt of stolen property, conversion, conspiracy to commit conversion, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The FACC pleads that Mr.
Apr 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
A third person can be held liable for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer. (Berger v. Varum (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1025 (“Because transferring funds in order to evade creditors constitutes an intentional tort, it logically follows that California common law should recognize liability for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer.”).) As noted ante, AMAG has alleged sufficient facts showing an alter ego relationship between Vlaze and Marc which renders Marc a judgment debtor in this action.
Jul 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, the wrongs alleged on the part of Ace, of advising, encouraging, aiding and abetting the Nestle Defendants in their conduct, relate to Plaintiff’s employment because the SAC alleges that ACE worked to create incentive programs at Nestle to reduce reporting employee injuries such as Plaintiff’s. Accordingly, the Demurrers to the Third Cause of Action are SUSTAINED without leave to amended as to both the Nestle Defendants and Ace.
Oct 23, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles 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): [Court of Appeal Decision, p. 13-20]
Dec 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
, Civil Code, §§51.2, 52(a); (15) mental anguish; (16) violation of Civil Code, §51.7 Ralph Act; (17) aiding and abetting; (18) battery; (19) assault; (20) civil harassment, Civil Code, §527.6; (21) Conspiracy, CACI No. 3600; (22) unlawful removal of child from parent custody without a warrant 3051; (23) defamation per se, Civil Code, §46(3)(5); (24) Bane Act violation, Civil Code, §52.1; (25) malicious prosecution; (26) gross negligence: (27) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee; (28) IIED
Sep 25, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
.): Plaintiffs allege violations of LMRDA, breaches of fiduciary duty, RICO and Labor Code violations, negligence, negligent supervision and aiding and abetting.
Jul 09, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
