Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The cause of action for sexual battery in a civil suit is provided in Civ. Code § 1708.5. Civ. Code § 1708.5 “requires the batterer intend to cause a ‘harmful or offensive’ contact and the batteree suffer a ‘sexually offensive contact.’” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225; Jacqueline R. v. Household of Faith Family Church, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 198, 208).
Civ. Code § 1708.5 states:
“Intimate part” means “the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female.” (Civ. Code § 1708.5(d)
“Offensive contact” means “contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.” ((Civ. Code § 1708.5(f))
This section is interpreted to require that the batteree did not consent to the contact. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225). Consent to sexual intercourse is vitiated by one partner’s fraudulent concealment of risk of infection with venereal disease, whether or not partners involved are married to each other. (Kathleen K. v. Robert B. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 992, 997).
A plaintiff may seek to apply vicarious liability through respondeat superior or ratification. However, in applying respondeat superior, courts have found in multiple cases that sexual misconduct towards a third party falls outside the scope of employment as a matter of law. See Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992 (deputy sheriff sexually harassed other deputy sheriffs at county jail); John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438 (teacher sexually molested student at teacher’s apartment during extracurricular program); Daza v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 260(guidance counselor sexually battered student); M.P. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121 (firefighters sexually assaulted photographer during costume ball)).
In a case with an alleged sexual battery by an ultrasound technician, the California Supreme Court explained its refusal to impose liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior as follows:
"Hospital employed a technician to conduct ultrasound examinations. The technician, after completing such an examination of plaintiff, took advantage of plaintiff's trust and his own superior knowledge to commit on her a deliberate sexual battery. His reasons for doing so did not derive from any events or conditions of his employment, nor were his actions provoked by anything that occurred during the prescribed examination. Hospital, by employing the technician and providing the ultrasound room, may have set the stage for his misconduct, but the script was entirely of his own, independent invention. For this reason it would be unfair and inconsistent with the basic rationale of respondeat superior to impose liability on Hospital irrespective of its own negligence."
(Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 306).
The statute of limitations for a sexual battery claim is two years. CCP § 335.1.
The elements of sexual battery under Civ. Code § 1708.5 must be specifically alleged. Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790).
The rights and remedies provided in Civ. Code § 1708.5 are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. (Civ. Code § 1708.5(e)). A general battery may be distinct from and broader than an alleged sexual battery. (See CACI Nos. 1300 and 1307; Cal. Civ. Prac. Torts § 12:10.) Medical negligence, medical battery, and sexual assault claims do not preclude sexual battery claims.
The court in an action pursuant to Civ. Code § 1708.5 may award equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction, costs, and any other relief the court deems proper. (Civ. Code § 1708.5(c)).
A person who commits a sexual battery upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 1708.5(b)).
Civil Procedure § 425.13 may be applicable in a claim for punitive damages against health care providers. In Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court explained:
“The allegations that identify the nature and cause of a plaintiff’s injury must be examined to determine whether each is directly related to the manner in which professional services were provided. Thus, a cause of action against a health care provider for battery predicated on treatment exceeding or different from that to which a plaintiff consented is governed by § 425.13 because the injury arose out of the manner in which professional services are provided. By contrast, a cause of action against a health care provider for sexual battery would not, in most instances, fall within the statute because the defendant’s conduct would not be directly related to the manner in which professional services were rendered…..The clear intent of the Legislature is that any claim for punitive damages in an action against a health care provider be subject to the statute if the injury that is the basis for the claim was caused by conduct that was directly related to the rendition of professional services.”
(Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 192). In that case, the Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress were subject to § 425.13 because the claims were directly related to the manner in which defendants provided professional services.
Subsequent Courts of Appeals have also held that § 425.13 applies to an action filed against a health care provider that directly relates to the providing of health care services, even where the claim involves allegations of intentional wrongdoing. See United Western Medical Centers v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 500; Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744, 749; Davis v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 623, 625-626.
Cooper, which concerned an alleged sexual assault by a gynecologist during a gynecological examination, provided further explanation on when sexual battery against a doctor or health care provider would not be related to the manner in which the professional services were rendered:
“Most types of services rendered by health care providers do not involve the genitalia. Thus if a podiatrist, ophthalmologist or dentist touches or manipulates a patient’s genitalia, there will usually be no arguable connection between such conduct and the rendition of legitimate health care. If a patient consults an orthopedic surgeon for treatment of bursitis in an elbow, there would usually be no occasion for the surgeon to touch or manipulate that patient’s genitalia. A doctor consulted for nutritional advice about cholesterol levels would not likely have a legitimate medical reason for manipulating genitalia. The list of examples of this type is endless. A doctor rendering gynecological care, by contrast, cannot render the full panoply of gynecological services without touching, probing or otherwise manipulating a woman’s genitalia. Thus when a gynecologist is accused . . . of committing a sexual battery in the course of rendering gynecological services, that accusation is necessarily ‘directly related’ to the manner in which the gynecological services were rendered.”
(Cooper, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at 751).
Jury instructions for sexual battery are in CACI No. 1306.
Plaintiff argues Defendant violated Civil Code §1708.5, which defines sexual battery. Pursuant to Angie M., supra, at 1225, consent negates a claim for sexual battery under §1708.5; as noted above, Plaintiff concedes that consent is a compete defense to a battery and/or sexual battery claim.
JAMMIE A. HILL VS BEACH CITY TREATMENT, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV08119
Sep 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The minute orders are somewhat crytic as to how Judge Bysshe wants this case managed; but this is a motion to continue a 12/21/09 trial on a forcible sexual battery/harrassment case in which the criminal proceeding/ investigation is past. The alleged perpetrator, who allegedly pled guilty to the misdemeanor sexual battery by restraint count, is now asserting in the civil case that the conduct was consensual. gmr
MONICA VICENTE VS. JOHNSON OIL CORPORATION
56-2008-00332337-CU-PO-VTA
Oct 23, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Defendant argues that it cannot be liable for sexual battery through either (1) vicarious liability/respondeat or (2) ratification. Plaintiff does not rebut, and therefore, concedes to the argument that Defendant cannot be held liability through vicarious liability/respondeat superior. With regard to ratification, the first cause of action for sexual battery does not sufficiently state facts to demonstrate ratification by Defendant. 2.
DOE VS. DEFENDANT DOE 1, SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2020-01134083
Dec 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
Defendant argues that it cannot be liable for sexual battery through either (1) vicarious liability/respondeat or (2) ratification. Plaintiff does not rebut, and therefore, concedes to the argument that Defendant cannot be held liability through vicarious liability/respondeat superior. With regard to ratification, the first cause of action for sexual battery does not sufficiently state facts to demonstrate ratification by Defendant. 2.
DOE VS. DEFENDANT DOE 1, SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2020-01134083
Jan 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
Mazariegos contends Villamarin was convicted of sexual battery by fraud on September 23, 2020 following a nolo contendere plea and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Mazariegos contends the cases are related because they involve “virtually identical factual scenarios” wherein Villamarin was consulted for treatment and engaged in sexual battery by fraud “under the guise of a ‘therapeutic’ massage.” The cases are not related under any prong of Rule 3.300(a).
SHEYLI MAZARIEGOS VS EDGAR GUSTAVO VILLAMARIN, PH.D.
20STCV42141
Jul 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On such facts, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the first cause of action for sexual battery without leave to amend. 3.
JENNIFER MOLIN VS THE ANGELES CLINIC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV39445
Apr 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, since Plaintiff Caryn Jordan amended the complaint to add the sexual battery cause of action, the Court’s previous ruling does not foreclose the Phan Defendants from filing a demurrer to that new cause of action. 3rd COA – Sexual Battery Sexual battery occurs, amongst other things, when a person “[a]cts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of another,” including the anus, “and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results.”
JORDAN VS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
30-2018-01021768-CU-MM-CJC
Sep 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
battery.
VICTORIA FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS CLAREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV19630
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Battery Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to constitute the intentional tort of sexual battery.
PLAINTIFF DOE VS INNOVATIVE FERTILITY CENTER, ET AL.
21STCV33265
Oct 31, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court concludes that there is, at minimum, a triable issue of material fact as to whether Beezy’s physical contact with Plaintiff’s vaginal area is “sexual” within the meaning of the sexual battery statute. Beezy’s motion for summary adjudication of the sexual battery claim is denied. C.
LORI H VS JOSEPH EDWARD BEEZY, ET AL.
18STCV09280
Sep 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The claim for sexual battery under § 1708.5 also requires evidence that Defendant intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact without consent. It is distinct from a battery claim in that a sexual battery involves an intimate body part. Civ. Code, § 1708.5. The claim is adequately pled under Section 1708.5(a)(1). Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff underwent a liposuction procedure performed by Defendants. Complaint, ¶ 9. Plaintiff awoke twice during the procedure.
SIRAN SARADZHYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS BABAK MOEINOLMOLKI, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19STCV03571
Jul 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Because Plaintiff Maya prevailed on her FEHA claims as well as the wage and hour claims, the fees for her wrongful termination and sexual battery claims are recoverable since they are intertwined with the FEHA claims. However, because Plaintiff Quigley did not prevail on the FEHA causes of action, the fees for her FEHA and sexual battery claims should be apportioned.
QUIGLEY VS BIS CLUB AND BAR, INC.
RIC2001940
Aug 04, 2022
Riverside County, CA
In August 2008, Baker was booked for violating Penal Code section 243.4(c) for sexual battery where victim was unconscious of the act because of the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation of a professional purpose.[2] Pet. Arrest Records (“Arr. Rec.”) 7. Baker subsequently also was charged with sexual battery under Penal Code section 243.4(e)(1).[3] AR 128.
ROBERT WAYNE BAKER RN VS STATE OF CA ET AL
BS165771
May 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The original complaint alleges that Zhangqi Xu and Chau Xu committed acts of civil sexual battery against Plaintiff. (Ching Decl., Exhibit 1 at ¶ 25.) The FAC alleges that Chau Xu and Zhangqi Xu committed acts of civil sexual battery against Plaintiff. (Ching Decl, Exhibit 8 at ¶ 40.)
JANE DOE VS HONGMIN ZHAO, ET AL.
19STCV25136
Feb 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
The FAC asserts cause of action for (1) negligence; (2) sexual battery; (3) infliction of emotional distress; (4) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (the unfair competition law or "UCL"); (5) violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA"); and (6) conspiracy to violate the UFTA. 2nd Cause of Action for Sexual Battery Defendants argue the claim for sexual battery fails because there are no allegations of any contact between Dr. Thota and plaintiff's intimate parts.
ANNIE AMANTEA VS NAGA THOTA MD
37-2016-00036839-CU-MM-CTL
Oct 12, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Case Number: 20STCV03709 Hearing Date: October 14, 2021 Dept: 28 Motion to Compel Nonparty LAPD to Produce Its Report Related to the Sexual Battery Involving Plaintiff S.C. Having reviewed the motion, notice of joinder, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff S.C.
S. C., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, F.G. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV03709
Oct 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Battery As defined by California Civil Code section 1708.5, a person commits sexual battery if he or she does any of the following: (1) 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; (2) acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another by use of his or her intimate part, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly
ELVIA C. VS YANG JA CHOI, ET AL.
19STCV34725
Mar 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
By its very terms, Section 1708.5 defines a sexual battery as conduct committed by a person . Section 1708.5 does not apply to LAUSD. The court further observes that Section 1708.5 merely sets forth the elements of a sexual battery claim.
JOHN DOE 101 VS ROE 1
22STCV38285
Mar 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On June 27, 2018, David filed a first amended cross-complaint for sexual battery and battery. Plaintiffs demur to the sexual battery and battery causes of action alleged in David’s FAXC on sufficiency/sham pleading and uncertainty grounds. Plaintiffs argue that the FAXC is a sham because David added facts inconsistent to its prior pleading in order to avoid Plaintiffs’ demurrer being sustained.
ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL
BC649025
Sep 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Sexual Battery
JENNIFER PARKER VS DEFENDANT DOE 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
22PSCV02768
Jun 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The elements for sexual battery differ from medical battery. In contrast to medical battery, Civil Code section 1708.5 states, in part, "(a) A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following: (1) 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."
STOWELL VS ALEXANDER II MD
37-2016-00029675-CU-PO-CTL
Mar 01, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff’s sexual battery claim was filed after January 1, 2019, so falls within the ten-year statute of limitations. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §340.16. DENIED. Sexual Battery as to Ben Jewelry Defendant claims the sexual battery claims against Ben Jewelry are barred, either because plaintiff’s DFEH complaint was untimely or because the allegations are barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.
MARYNA SILINA VS BEN JEWELRY INC.
19SMCV01514
Jul 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s sexual battery claim was filed after January 1, 2019, so falls within the ten-year statute of limitations. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §340.16. DENIED. Sexual Battery as to Ben Jewelry Defendant claims the sexual battery claims against Ben Jewelry are barred, either because plaintiff’s DFEH complaint was untimely or because the allegations are barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.
MARYNA SILINA VS BEN JEWELRY INC.
19SMCV01514
Aug 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that, regardless of whether the legal theory of liability is sexual harassment/battery, assault and battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, the ultimate facts alleged by Plaintiff regarding Defendant LOWRY’s conduct sound in a sexual battery. (FAC ¶13.) As a result, the Court shall utilize the same standards in addressing Plaintiff’s first, second, third, and sixth causes of action.
DORA MENDOZA VS STEVEN PATRICK LOWRY D C ET AL
BC608231
Oct 24, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Battery 2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3. Assault 4. Negligence 5. Premises Liability RULING : The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.
ANGELINA KANNO, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, YOKHANA KANNO VS CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, ET AL.
19STCV44912
Apr 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In the instant case, defendant Hernandez contends that plaintiff’s cause of action for sexual battery is factually deficient and uncertain.
PHILIP MARTINEZ VS SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL
1380458
Jun 21, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
Furthermore, the allegations of the FAC are specific as to the conduct that Plaintiffs allege constitutes sexual battery or sexual assault permitting Boytis to understand the factual nature or extent of the causes of action for sexual battery and assault alleged against him. For these reasons, Boytis’s special demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action alleged in the FAC is overruled.
WENDY VENTURA, ET AL. VS. DWIGHT BOYTIS, ET AL
22CV01698
May 03, 2023
Santa Barbara County, CA
LaForteza Judge of the Superior Court [1] Civil Code section 1708.5 codifies the elements of the intentional tort of sexual battery.
DMITRY GUROVICH VS CALIN ARIMIE, MD, ET AL.
20STCV39823
Dec 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges an offensive touching in a non-intimate manner sufficient to distinguish the battery claim from the sexual battery claim. (SAC, para 15.) Plaintiff also alleges specific omissions and misrepresentations by Defendant Lemus in communicating to Plaintiff about the results of the first exam and the need and true purpose of a second exam. (Id., para 16.)
JANE DOE VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA
56-2020-00541805-CU-PO-VTA
Apr 06, 2021
Ventura County, CA
The first amended complaint ("FAC") asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault; (2) sexual battery; (3) gender violence; (4) violation of the Ralph Act; (5) violation of the Bane Act; (6) sexual harassment; and (7) negligence. Plaintiff moves to summarily adjudicate the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd causes of action.
GAGLIARDO VS. DIBLIN
37-2015-00037520-CU-NP-CTL
Aug 24, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
DEMURRER: Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for sexual battery under Civil Code Section 1708.5.
BERNADETTE GIOVINCO VS PACIFICA HOTEL COMPANY ET AL
1306145
Jun 29, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
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).
LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT
19STCV25089
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The evidence likewise establishes that the alleged sexual battery was not “precipitated by a work-related dispute over performance of [Lanting’s] duties.” (See Ibid.) As such, the sexual battery was “not a risk that may fairly be regarded as typical of or broadly incidental to the operation of” a trucking and storage company. (See Ibid.)
SONIA ALCALA VS BRAD LANTING ET AL.
STK-CV-UNPI-2017-0000743
Oct 24, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Sexual battery/IIED action filed 10/16/08. Trial set for 9/28/09. No subst. of atty. in the file. Counsel on ex parte labels D "petitioner"... why ? Asks for continuance but no specific date requested. gmr
DANA F FERGUSON VS. GEROGE PECCI
56-2008-00329407-CU-PO-VTA
Aug 25, 2009
Ventura County, CA
First Cause of Action for Sexual Battery Civil Code section 1708.5 provides the following: (a) A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following: (1) 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.
CHRISTINA JOHNS VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
BC670825
Jan 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Battery Causes of Action The Court finds that summary judgment and adjudication are properly denied here. “The doctrine of respondeat superior is an exception to the general rule that liability follows fault. Respondeat superior generally imposes liability on an employer when its employee engages in tortious conduct while acting within the course and scope of employment.
DORA MENDOZA VS STEVEN PATRICK LOWRY D C ET AL
BC608231
Oct 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed causes of action would provide for a different and distinct civil remedy from a sexual battery claim under CCC § 1708.5. // // Prejudice Plaintiff argues that Defendant will not be prejudiced by the amendment because Plaintiff is not seeking to add or change any factual allegations beyond those currently in the FAC but only seeks to remove the sexual battery and assault causes of action and replace them with civil violations of the penal code sections
JOHN CJ DOE VS DOE 1
BC554613
Nov 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The statute has specifically been applied to claims for sexual battery against medical providers, where the plaintiff sustained the battery while a patient of the provider. In United Western Medical Centers v.
JANE DOE VS MICHELSON LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.
22STCV08835
Apr 30, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
DEFENDANTS MOEINOLMOLKI & MOEIN SURGICAL ARTS DEMURRER Demurrer by Defendants Babak Moeinolmolki, M.D. and Moein Surgical Arts to the second cause of action for Sexual Battery alleged in Plaintiff Siran Saradzhyan’s Complaint is OVERRULED.
SIRAN SARADZHYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS BABAK MOEINOLMOLKI, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19STCV03571
Nov 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Sexual Battery As to the sexual battery claim, Plaintiff fails to allege lack of consent as a matter of law. A cause of action for sexual battery under Civil Code section 1708.5 requires the batterer intend to cause a harmful or offensive contact and the batteree suffer a sexually offensive contact. Moreover, the section is interpreted to require that the batteree did not consent to the contact. ( Angie M. v.
MEREDITH BLAKE VS JEREMIAH MICHAEL LANGER
19SMCV01650
Jun 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The claim for sexual battery under Cal. Civil Code § 1708.5 also requires evidence that Plaintiff did not consent. It is distinct from a battery claim in that sexual battery involves an intimate body part. Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225; Civ. Code, § 1708.5. After consideration of all of the relevant material facts as a whole, including Plaintiff’s testimony, whether Plaintiff consented to the conduct is a triable issue of fact.
ERICA SCOTT VS DEJA VU CONSULTING INC
BC670949
Apr 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The claim for sexual battery under § 1708.5 also requires evidence that Plaintiff did not consent. It is distinct from a battery claim in that sexual battery involves an intimate body part. Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225; Civ. Code, § 1708.5. After consideration of all of the relevant material facts as a whole, including Plaintiff’s testimony, whether Plaintiff consented to the conduct is a triable issue of fact.
ERICA SCOTT VS DEJA VU CONSULTING INC
BC670949
May 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Battery On May 18, 2023, Defendant filed a demurrer to the original complaint. On June 26, 2023, the court sustained in part (i.e., as to negligent COAs) and overruled in part (i.e., as to sexual battery and IIED COAs) the demurrer and granted leave to amend. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) asserting four COAs: 1. Negligence/Negligent Supervision/Failure To Warn, Train Or Educate/Negligent Failure To Protect Plaintiff 2.
JENNIFER PARKER VS DEFENDANT DOE 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
22PSCV02768
Sep 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Specifically, during the alleged sexual battery, Plaintiff tried to leave but Defendant closed the door and pushed his body against Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶ 28.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant [tried] to trap her at her car in the motor court in the front yard of his Hollywood Hills home. (Complaint ¶ 56.) During that alleged sexual battery, Defendant pushed her against the car and forced his body against hers. (Complaint ¶ 19.) Plaintiff told him to stop and he would not listen.
DIANA LANDS NATHANSON VS ALEXANDER GERVASI
22STCV31501
Mar 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s sexual battery claim was filed after January 1, 2019, so falls within the ten-year statute of limitations. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §340.16. DENIED. Sexual Battery as to Ben Jewelry Defendant claims the sexual battery claims against Ben Jewelry are barred, either because plaintiff’s DFEH complaint was untimely or because the allegations are barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.
MARYNA SILINA VS BEN JEWELRY INC.
19SMCV01514
Aug 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
First Cause of Action – Sexual Battery in Violation of Civil Code, § 1708.5 The tort of sexual battery in violation of Civil Code section 1708.5 requires that the defendant intend to cause a “harmful or offensive” contact, that the batteree suffered a “sexually offensive contact,” and that the batteree did not consent to the contact. (Angie M. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225.)
JANE DOE V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
20-CV-373489
Jul 01, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
This sufficiently alleges an intentional violent act: an alleged sexual battery. (See FAC ¶ 7.) The demurrer to the second and third causes of action is overruled. B. The Fourth Cause Of Action Is Sufficiently Pleaded. The fourth cause of action alleges sexual battery.
LIDA KHORSANDI VS SUSAN L. CHOBANIAN, M.D., ET AL.
22STCV31316
Jul 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The court held that CCP § 425.13 applied since her allegations were directly related to the professional services rendered by a health care provider: "[W]hen a gynecologist is accused, as here, of committing a sexual battery in the course of rendering gynecological services, that accusation is necessarily "directly related" to the manner in which the gynecological services were rendered."
DOE VS. KEMPIAK
37-2017-00019334-CU-MM-NC
Oct 05, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Defendant ("The Regents") demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is: Sustained with 20-days leave to amend as to causes of action one [sexual battery (Civil Code sec. 1708.5) and two [sexual battery]. The demurrer is sustained with 20-days leave to amend as to cause of action three [FEHA-sexual harassment]. Sustained without leave to amend as to cause of action six [intentional infliction of emotional distress]. Sustained with 20-days leave to amend as to cause of action seven for negligence.
ANGELINA BARBOSA VS. AKSHAY GOVIND ET AL
CGC23610054
Apr 12, 2024
San Francisco County, CA
The FAC is 75 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JANE DOE VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL
23CV01083
Oct 14, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FAC is 75 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JANE DOE VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL
23CV01083
Oct 16, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
It is 76 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JUN KOSEY VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES
23CV02547
Feb 10, 2024
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FAC is 75 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JANE DOE VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL
23CV01083
Oct 12, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
It is 76 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JUN KOSEY VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES
23CV02547
Feb 12, 2024
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FAC is 75 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JANE DOE VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL
23CV01083
Oct 11, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
It is 76 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JUN KOSEY VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES
23CV02547
Feb 09, 2024
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FAC is 75 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JANE DOE VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL
23CV01083
Oct 17, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FAC is 75 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JANE DOE VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL
23CV01083
Oct 13, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FAC is 75 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JANE DOE VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL
23CV01083
Oct 15, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
It is 76 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JUN KOSEY VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES
23CV02547
Feb 14, 2024
Santa Cruz County, CA
It is 76 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JUN KOSEY VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES
23CV02547
Feb 15, 2024
Santa Cruz County, CA
It is 76 pages (304 paragraphs) primarily describing an alleged sexual battery of her by Defendant Jon Jones, her housemate in the Monarch Housing Project, an affordable housing community for the disabled, and the housing project’s refusal to install security cameras.
JUN KOSEY VS ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES
23CV02547
Feb 11, 2024
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Court sustained the demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for sexual battery stating, "The FAC alleges Dr. Thota gave plaintiff injections, but does not allege that the doctor touched any of plaintiff's intimate parts." A sexual battery occurs when a person intends "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." Civ. Code, § 1708.5, subd. (a)(1). Dr.
ANNIE AMANTEA VS NAGA THOTA MD
37-2016-00036839-CU-MM-CTL
Jan 24, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Therefore, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the 4 th COA for sexual battery WITHOUT leave to amend. In sum, at this point, one of the negligence COAs is to be dismissed and as is the sexual battery COA. That leaves one negligence COA and an IIED COA. With sufficient facts pled as the foregoing COAs, the court will now turn to the constitutional issue. 4.
JENNIFER PARKER VS DEFENDANT DOE 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
22PSCV02768
Oct 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Battery Under California law, a person commits sexual battery when he [a]cts 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. Cal . Civ.Code § 1708.5(a)(1); see also Shanahan v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 193 Cal.App.4th 780, 788, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 572 (2011) ([T]he tort of sexual battery requires an intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact.)
A. B., BY AND THROUGH GAL, ET AL. VS PATHWAYS LA, ET AL.
22STCV07880
Mar 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Battery Civil Code section 1708.5 provides the following: (a) A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following : (1) 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.
VICTORIA FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS CLAREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV19630
Sep 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff prays for punitive damages in the intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, battery, sexual battery, and false imprisonment causes of action. Ebling argues that Plaintiff’s has failed to comply with CCP § 425.13—thus, Ebling’s motion to strike should be granted.
YESSENIA GUTIERREZ VS ALAN EBLING D C ET AL
BC596912
Feb 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
For example, Form Interrogatory No. 6.1 asks if Defendant attributes any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the incident, Defendant responds, As much as would be expected in a situation where a person is a victim of sexual battery and assault at the hands of a remorseless Plaintiff and his attorneys. This, is clearly combative and does not respond completely and straightforwardly to the question.
ALEC HORTON VS RIV HALTOM, ET AL.
20STCV49196
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
For example, Form Interrogatory No. 6.1 asks if Defendant attributes any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the incident, Defendant responds, As much as would be expected in a situation where a person is a victim of sexual battery and assault at the hands of a remorseless Plaintiff and his attorneys. This, is clearly combative and does not respond completely and straightforwardly to the question.
ALEC HORTON VS RIV HALTOM, ET AL.
20STCV49196
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(Although the Complaint alleges, in paragraph 24, that Smith continued to work for AC following his arrest for sexual battery in October 2017, the Complaint does not allege that AC was aware of that arrest.) Plaintiff is given leave to amend to allege facts demonstrating ratification of Smith's molestation of Plaintiff by AC. The Court will prepare the order. AC shall serve Notice of Entry of Order on Plaintiff.
ROE VS ABSOLUTE CHIROPRACTIC - DR. PAM'S WELLNESS CENTER, IN
RG21092896
Sep 21, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Like the FAC, the original complaint also alleged that a sexual battery and sexual assault occurred on March 9, 2022. The gravamen of Plaintiffs causes of action, in both the original complaint and the FAC, involve allegations of sexual battery and sexual assault that occurred on March 9, 2022. The fact that some unlawful conduct is alleged to have occurred before the EFAAs enactment does not preclude its application.
VIRIDIANA ARANDA VS TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;, ET AL.
23NWCV02460
Apr 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
AS TO THE 3RD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL BATTERY, THE OFFENSIVE TOUCHING, AS ALLEGED, WAS SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO THE TREATMENT SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF TO REQUIRE AN EVIDENTIARY SHOWING UNDER CCP SECTION 425.13 BEFORE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CAN BE SOUGHT. (JH)
JAMIE CIRDAIN VS. CHRISTOPHER ROSS DC ET AL
CGC02405646
May 23, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
Subdivision (b) of section 1708 .5 provides [a] person who commits a sexual battery upon another [is] liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages. A cause of action for sexual battery under Civil Code section 1708.5 requires the batterer intend to cause a harmful or offensive contact and the¿batteree¿suffer a sexually offensive contact. ( Angie M. v. Superior Court ¿(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225.)
JENNIFER MOLIN VS THE ANGELES CLINIC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV39445
Nov 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for Sexual Battery, Sexual Orientation Related Violence, Sexual Harassment, Constructive Fraud, Unfair Business Practices, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Hiring Retention Supervision and Training, and Negligence.
JOHN DOE VS FACEY MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV40434
Mar 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants for: 1) Sexual Harassment in Defined Relationship; 2) Sexual Battery; 3) Ralph Act - Gender Violence; 4) Professional Negligence; 5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 6) Fraud/Concealment; 7) Defamation; 8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defendants seek to strike the First Amended Complaint.
LORI HOEFT VS RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
BC638394
Dec 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
(a) Sexual Battery, Adequacy of Allegation of Lack of Consent. The Cottage defendants demur to the first cause of action for sexual battery, contending once again that plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that the sexual conduct by Trimble was not consensual.
JANE DOE VS COTTAGE RESIDENTIAL CENTER ET AL
1469978
Aug 21, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
Despite the fact that the 1 st cause of action for Sexual Battery and 2 nd cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are not alleged against LAUSD, Plaintiff references Government Code 815.2 within these causes of action. ( See FAC ¶12 (p.3:11), ¶18 (p.4:8).
I. G. VS PAUL ADAME, ET AL.
20STCV39389
Apr 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT RAISES A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT; RATHER PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE AND THE INFERENCES THEREFROM CONSTITUTE SPECULATION THAT WHAT OCCURRED WAS AN ACCIDENTAL TOUCHING NOT SEXUAL BATTERY. =(302/PJM/PB)
DOUGLAS REILLY ET AL VS. CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER, A ET AL
CGC06448942
Sep 19, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
In Leybas motion, the heading on page 6 argues that John Doe 7028s claim for sexual battery fails because there is no evidence that he intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with John Doe 7028s intimate parts or that a sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff resulted, either directly or indirectly. (Motion, p. 6.)
MARC ALLEN VS 1, ET AL.
21STCV41416
Nov 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Because Cross-Complainant has failed to respond to the special interrogatory asking for the date of the alleged sexual battery and trespass in violation of the order, the appropriate sanction here is to preclude Cross-Complainant from introducing evidence of the date of the alleged sexual battery and trespass at trial. Regarding form interrogatory No. 17.1, the RFAs at issue are Nos. 1, 2, 4-8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42-45, 48-71, 77-82, and 84-92.
BELLA ALL NATURAL, INC VS MAYELI ALONSO
18STCV08265
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
19STCV2424
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer to 1st and 9th C/A: Sexual battery and Sexual Battery per Civil Code 1708.5: SUSTAINED in part with leave to amend; overrule in part A relevant distinction between the alleged sexual battery in the 1st cause of action and the alleged sexual battery in the 9th cause of action is not apparent. According to Witkin, some civil code statutes have been created for specialized forms of battery, and Civil Code §1708.5 appears to be one of them defining civil liability for the tort of sexual battery.
ESCAMILLA V. ST. JOSEPH HEALTH
30-2018-01001599-CU-PO-CJC
Dec 13, 2018
Orange County, CA
On 2/17/22, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that plaintiffs were patrons at the Mayfair Hotel at 1256 W 7th Street, Los Angeles, where a hotel security guard committed sexual battery on Plaintiff, a newlywed wife. The causes of action are: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, AND SUPERVISION 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 4. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5. PREMISES LIABILITY 6. ASSAULT 7. BATTERY 8. SEXUAL BATTERY 9.
H C, ET AL. VS CRESCENT HOTELS AND RESORTS, LLC, ET AL.
22STCV04185
Sep 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Supreme Court, in the Central Pathology decision that still defines the scope of the governing statute, stated in pertinent part as follows: “a cause of action against a health care provider for sexual battery would not, in most instances, fall within the statute because the defendant's conduct would not be directly related to the manner in which professional services were rendered.” (Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 192.)
B.M.M. VS. CODY BACA
MSC18-00594
Jul 12, 2018
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
(DSS 7) · After conducting its interview with Plaintiff, the Lakewood Sheriff's Department concluded that no sexual battery had occurred and that they were closing their file.
JANE DOE VS LAKEWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
19STCV08221
Apr 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs also allege sexual battery from a worker hired by Defendant. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) violation of California Civil Code Section 1708.5 (sexual battery) as to Plaintiff Evelyn, (4) constructive eviction, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.
ASHLEY STRAUSS, ET AL. VS NORTH OAK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, INC.
23TRCV00942
Nov 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Sexual Battery, Assault, Sexual Harassment, Workplace Harassment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Retaliation, Conversion, Trespass, and Invasion of Privacy. On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint for Sexual Battery, Assault, Work Place Harassment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Retaliation, Conversion, Trespass, Invasion of Privacy, and Non-Payment of Wages.
JAY COOK-WONG, ET AL. VS BRADLEY SPENCER, ET AL.
23CHCV00946
Nov 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The allegations of sexual battery could support felony or misdemeanor charges against Sampang. (Pen. Code, §§ 240-243.4.)
JANE DOE M.L. VS PIH HEALTH GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, ET AL.
21STCV24108
Nov 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the fifth cause of action for violation of the Ralph Act Plaintiff alleges the sexual battery she endured violates the Ralph Act. (Civ. Code, § 51.7.)
DOE 101 VS 1
CVSW2102331
Feb 18, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The complaint alleges four causes of action for sexual battery, sexual assault/stalking, fraud and intentional infliction of emotion al distress. Allan demurrers to the first three causes of action only. Sexual Battery CC § 1708.5 Allan's demurrer is OVERRULED. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to CC § 1708.5.
FISCHER VS ALLAN
37-2021-00011957-CU-PO-CTL
Dec 15, 2023
San Diego County, CA
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that, regardless of whether the legal theory of liability is sexual harassment/battery, assault and battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, the ultimate facts alleged by Plaintiff regarding Defendant LOWRY’s conduct sound in a sexual battery. (SAC ¶13.) As a result, the Court shall utilize the same standards in addressing Plaintiff’s first, second, third, and sixth causes of action.
DORA MENDOZA VS STEVEN PATRICK LOWRY D C ET AL
BC608231
Mar 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JANE N.R. DOE, ET AL. V. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19CV-0599
Jul 09, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Battery in Violation of Civ.
ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL
BC649025
May 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
ADDED TO LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR FOR Ntc Of Defts' Mo For Summary Adjudication *** $100.00 Summ Adjud Mo Fee Paid Receipt # 521743 *** GRANT AS TO 5TH [BATTERY] & 6TH [SEXUAL BATTERY] CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER FRETLAND. BARRED BY WORKER'S COMP. DEFENDANT (EMPLOYER) DID NOT COMMIT ASSAULT, NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S POSITIVE MISCONDUCT OR RATIFICATION, AND NO EXCEPTION CITED. DENY AS TO 7TH [IIED] CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER FRETLAND. GRANT AS TO 8TH [CC 51.7] CAUSE OF ACTION.
PERRY VS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC
CGC00313110
Nov 09, 2001
San Francisco County, CA
The FAC, filed on April 27, 2017, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Professional Negligence of Therapist; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Battery; (4) Sexual Battery; (5) Sexual Battery by Therapist; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (7) Negligence Per Se; and (8) Sexual Harassment. Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in all causes of action except for professional negligence and negligence per se.
BEATRIZ LILIANA COLLIER VS DAVID J FRENCH PHD LMFT ET AL
BC654432
Nov 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for battery, second cause of action for assault, third cause of action for sexual battery, and ninth cause of action for violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. ANALYSIS Whether Defendant is Allegedly Liable for the Conduct of its Employee as it Relates to Battery, Assault, and Sexual Battery Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that his supervisor, Defendant Sierra, verbally threatened Plaintiff and repeatedly raped him.
PEDRO SANTOS VS UMA ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV22876
Mar 18, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Notwithstanding, based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it is clear that the first cause of action is for sexual battery, and the second cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court is not bound by the captions or labels of a cause of action in a pleading and the nature and character of a pleading is to be determined from the facts alleged, not the name given by the pleader to the cause of action. ( Ananda Church of Self-Realization v.
ALEXANDRA M ARAMBULA VS RICHARD GIL
20STCV29848
Apr 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff requests the Court grant the motion and compel nonparty LAPD to comply with the subpoena and produce the requested report on the sexual battery.
S. C., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, F.G. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV03709
Aug 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
S, filed a complaint against Torrance Unified School District and Dalan Anthony Johnson for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent failure to warn train or educate, (4) constructive fraud (Civil Code 1573), (5) IIED, (6) sexual abuse and harassment in the educational environment (Education Code §220), (7) general violence, (8) sexual battery, and (9) sexual assault.
JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
19STCV31405
Jan 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Set Aside Default/Default Judgment Plaintiff Regina Moxley filed her complaint against defendant Sant Ram Pallan for battery, sexual harassment (Civil Code § 51.9), sexual battery (Civil Code § 1708.5), false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress, and physical abuse of a dependent adult. On July 18, 2012, the court entered defendant’s default. Defendant moves to set aside the default based on excusable neglect.
REGINA MARIE MOXLEY VS SANT RAM PALLAN
1385732
Oct 17, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.