What is sexual battery?

Useful Rulings on Battery – Sexual (Civil)

Recent Rulings on Battery – Sexual (Civil)

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

A person commits a sexual battery when he/she acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of another, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results. See CC 1708.5(a)(1). Contrary to Hang’s assertion, imminent apprehension of the conduct is not required. Rather, imminent apprehension of the conduct is just one of the ways a person can commit sexual battery. See CC 1708.5(a)(1)-(3).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LILIA RIOS, ET AL. VS EDGAR G. VILLAMARIN

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on March 26, 2019, alleging four causes of action sounding in: (1) Sexual Battery by Lilia against Defendant; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Lilia against Defendant; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Eduardo against Defendant; and (4) Negligence by Lilia against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JANE N.R. DOE, ET AL. V. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Magdaleno’s alleged pattern of harassment, sexual battery, and assault. Lucia Mar argues there are common legal issues in both Actions. Lucia Mar asserts that the theories of liability in the Actions are the same, and that each Plaintiff claims a similar form of injury. Lucia Mar alleges that the trier of fact will have to evaluate the same questions in each Action: what Mr. Magdaleno did, when Lucia Mar learned about Plaintiffs’ allegations against Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JANE DOE VS JASON GRANGER

Subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1708.5 makes “[a] person who commits a sexual battery upon another [] liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

DOE G.F. V. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case arises out of an alleged sexual battery by teacher upon middle-school student. Alex Bassinne was a math teacher at Villa Fundamental Intermediate School. On or about 11/03/10, he reportedly cornered plaintiff – then aged 13 – during the lunch break and committed a sexual battery upon her inside a classroom. Bassinne ultimately plead guilty to a felony charge of lewd conduct with plaintiff. See OCSC Case No. 12 HF1197.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS EMPLOYERS HR, LLC, ET AL.

The FAC alleges that Plaintiffs reported the sexual harassment, sexual battery, and rape committed by Hilario to their supervisors (defendants Canseco and Silva) and that these supervisors ignored Plaintiffs’ complaints. (FAC ¶¶ 14(i), 14(j), 24(g), 24(i).) These allegations are sufficient to establish Defendant Lyneer’s knowledge.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE V.L. DOE, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, EDITH COLLAZO VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Sexual Harassment; (3) Sexual Assault; and (4) Sexual Battery. The Motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 6-14. The Court finds that RPDs 6-14 are limited in scope to information concerning Defendant RODRIGUEZ throughout the course of his employment. The requests are not overbroad.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YUNUEN CAMPOS VS KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING INC ET AL

On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for (1) battery; (2) assault; (3) sexual battery; (4) sexual harassment; (5) negligent supervision and retention; (6) civil rights violations; (7) violation of Tom bane Civil Rights; (8) gender violence; and (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Demurrer First Cause of Action for Sexual Battery (Civ. Code § 1708.5) Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against demurring Defendant. Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

JANE DOE,A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN DOE VS NEIL DAVID KIMBALL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Code § 51.7); Sexual Battery (Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5); Battery; Assault; and Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Kimball was a detective in the Sex Crimes Unit of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who used his power to rape a minor rape victim he was assigned to protect. Plaintiff alleges that in the summer of 2017, Defendant Kimball was assigned the task of investigating the rape of Plaintiff, then a fourteen-year-old girl.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS ZETA BETA TAU FRATERNITY ET AL

Thus, IFC “implicitly undertook the responsibility for enacting safety measures preventing violations of their rules including sexual assault, intoxication and sexual battery.” (FAC ¶ 82.) As an initial matter, Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that IFC recruits members for Zeta Beta Tau. Plaintiff also, however, states that the fraternities themselves accept and recruit members.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

MARIA MORENO VS JOHN DOE, ET AL.

Our state Supreme Court has made clear that “it would not be fair to attribute to” a medical employer, which employed a party to conduct specific medical work, “the costs of a deliberate, independently motivated sexual battery unconnected to the prescribed examination.” (Id. at p. 304.) Accordingly, Defendants Peter M. Newton, M.D., Newton Medical Evaluations, Inc., a California Corporation fka Peter M.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

ANJA BAYET, ET AL. V. PETER LEVY, DC

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages in connection with the sexual battery cause of action. In response to written discovery requests, plaintiff Korsan identified Dr. Joseph Frawley as a healthcare provider who treated her for injuries related to this case between October 30, 2018, and November 26, 2018; identified Dr. Frawley as a healthcare provider who advised her that she would need future care for her injuries; and identified Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

CRYSTAL PEREZ VS KAISER PERMANENTE ET AL

Neither party presents any authority that clearly defines a sexual battery like the one perpetrated by Adenuga as “violence” under the Ralph or Bane acts. Defendants cite non-controlling federal cases that considered the scope of the word “violence” in those laws. In Campbell v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., the district court remarked that “violence” meant “some physical, destructive act” beyond the “mere application of physical force.” ((N.D. Cal. 2014) 75 F.Supp.3d 1193, 1205.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DOE V. DOE

Plaintiff argues in reply that case opinions finding sexual abuse or sexual battery does not fall within the course and scope of employment only apply to claims against employers seeking to impose liability under a theory of respondent superior and that case authority has no bearing on corporate liability for punitive damages arising from a managing agent’s criminal conduct.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

VAUGHN, JAMES VS. STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

As to the Third Cause of Action for Sexual Battery and the Fourth Cause of Action for Assault, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, met the initial burden of demonstrating prima facie entitlement to judgment on those claims. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating a material factual dispute.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

VASQUEZ V. THE NECK AND BACK CENTER, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that “the subject sexual battery incidents were ongoing on [sic] occurred on multiple dates through approximately November 2016. Plaintiff first discovered she suffered psychological damages as a result of the incidents in approximately February 2017 which has proximately caused serious injury to Plaintiff after the Fresno County Police asked the Media in an [sic] around Fresno, CA to seek victims for Defendants [sic] conduct.” (SAC, ¶ 1.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEFINA LIMTAO VS EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION, INC., ET AL.

(e) Sexual assault, that means any of the following: (1) Sexual battery, as defined in Section 243.4 of the Penal Code. (2) Rape, as defined in Section 261 of the Penal Code. (3) Rape in concert, as described in Section 264.1 of the Penal Code. (4) Spousal rape, as defined in Section 262 of the Penal Code. (5) Incest, as defined in Section 285 of the Penal Code. (6) Sodomy, as defined in Section 286 of the Penal Code.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE DOE VS ORLANDES FLETCHER, III, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: (1) Assault, (2) Battery, (3) General Negligence, (4) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention, (5) Sexual Assault and Battery, (6) Sexual Harassment, (7) Gender Violence, (8) Negligent Per Se, (9) Sexual Battery, (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (11) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (12) False Imprisonment, (13) General Negligence, (14) Premises Liability.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

The FAC alleges various causes of action for sexual harassment, gender violence, sexual battery, IIED, and negligent hiring/training/retention/supervision. ANALYSIS: Defendant the City seeks an order staying this action pending the determination of a related criminal case against defendant Mims, People v. Mims, currently pending the Los Angeles Superior Court.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

BARKER VS. DI LANDO

Israels (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1290 plaintiff, a sexual battery victim, sued the attorney for the assailant after the attorney subpoenaed her mental health records and used them in a criminal proceeding. The court held that Civil Code section 47, the litigation privilege, barred her claim for abuse of process. Further, even if section 47 did not apply, “mere vexation or harassment are not objectives sufficient to give rise to the tort of abuse of process.” (Id. at 1303.) Susan S. controls here.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

SHAWNTEE RICHARDSON VS MARY BENNETT, ET AL.

Code, § 12955]; Gender Violence; Sexual Battery; Assault; Battery; Tenant Harassment; Retaliatory Eviction; Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability; and Nuisance Lane Nussabaum, counsel for Defendants, now moves the Court to withdraw from the action. The motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TIANYI ZHAO VS XIONG ZHANG

.: BC707749 Hearing Date: March 9, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion for order permitting discovery of defendant’s financial condition BACKGROUND Plaintiff Tianyi Zhao (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ziong Zhang (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for sexual battery, assault, battery, violations of Civil Code section 51.7 and 52.4, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JULIE LEE VS JAE-YEON SHIM, ET AL.

DISCUSSION Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Julie Lee moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages requested in (1) the Chung FAXC’s harassment and IIED claims, (2) the Shim FAXC’s harassment, gender violence, sexual battery, and IIED claims, and (3) the Sung SAXC’s harassment, IIED, and wrongful constructive termination claims.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

MARYNA SILINA VS BEN JEWELRY INC.

Sexual Battery An employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of the employment, including intentional torts. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 360. An employer can also be held liable for an intentional tort if it ratifies an employee’s conduct, becoming a joint participant in the conduct. Hart v. National Mortgage & Land Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1430.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.