arrow left
arrow right
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • JONATHAN KORZEKWA VS. ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 GREGORY R. DE LA PEÑA (SBN 126626) R. WESLEY PRATT (SBN 191159) 2 KEVIN N. LABARBERA (SBN 325745) DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP ELECTRONICALLY 3 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 F I L E D San Francisco, CA 94111 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Telephone: (415) 268-8000 Facsimile: (415) 268-8180 02/03/2021 5 Required for electronic service: Calendaring@dlphlaw.com Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendants Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC, 7 Mark Aloiau, and Anthony Amburn 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 11 JONATHAN KORZEKWA, CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 12 Plaintiff, 94111 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 13 v. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF San Francisco, CA DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE 14 ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC; LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND MARK ALOIAU; ANTHONY AMBURN; ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR 15 OCTAVIA INVESTMENT CO., L.P.; SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE PETER BLASKO; and DOES 1 through 50, ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR 16 inclusive, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Tel. 17 Defendants. Date: April 23, 2021 Time: 9:30 a.m. 18 Dept.: 302 Judge: Ethan P. Schulman 19 20 Complaint Filed: 09/25/2018 Trial Date: 05/24/2021 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 222979 1 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................... 7 4 A. The Alleged Incident ......................................................................................................... 7 5 B. Defendants Anthony Amburn and Mark Aloiau Have No Direct Involvement in the 6 Alleged Incident or in the Hiring/Training/Firing of Security Guards ............................. 8 7 C. Managing Members and Managing Officers of Encore Had No Advance Knowledge of 8 Employee Violence ........................................................................................................... 9 9 1. Members ...................................................................................................................... 9 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 2. Managing Agents ...................................................................................................... 10 11 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 D. Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC is Properly Organized .................................................... 10 12 94111 III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 11 13 San Francisco, CA A. Standard of Review ......................................................................................................... 11 14 B. Plaintiff Cannot Recover Against Individual Defendants on Any Cause of Action in the 15 Complaint. ....................................................................................................................... 11 16 1. Individual Defendants Are Not Directly Liable Under Any Cause of Action .......... 11 Tel. 17 a. Individual Defendants Did Not Assault or Batter Plaintiff ................................. 12 18 b. Individual Defendants Did Not Deprive Plaintiff of His Constitutional Rights . 12 19 c. Individual Defendants Did Not Convert Plaintiff’s Cellphone ........................... 13 20 d. Individual Defendants Did Not Negligently Hire, Retain, or Supervise Encore 21 Employees 13 22 2. Individual Defendants are Not Liable Under Any Cause of Action by Alter-Ego Theory ... 14 23 a. No Unity of Interest ............................................................................................. 15 24 (i) Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC, was properly incorporated. ......................... 15 25 (ii) Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC, maintains its own insurance. ....................... 15 26 (iii)All employees and contractors were paid by Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC. 27 15 28 222979 2 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 (iv) Individual Defendants did not commingle funds. ......................................... 15 2 (v) Individual Defendants did not use LLC assets for their own benefit. ........... 15 3 b. No Fraud or Injustice Exists ................................................................................ 16 4 C. Plaintiff Cannot Recover Against Individual Defendants or Encore Karaoke Lounge, 5 LLC for Public Nuisance.......................................................................................................... 17 6 D. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Punitive Damages ....................................................................... 19 7 1. Plaintiff Cannot Recover Punitive Damages Against Individual Defendants ........... 20 8 2. Plaintiff Cannot Recover Punitive Damages Against Corporate Employer.............. 20 9 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 21 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 11 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 12 94111 13 San Francisco, CA 14 15 16 Tel. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 222979 3 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 ........................................................... 11 4 American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1049 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 6 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 254-255 ...................................................... 19 7 Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838-840 .................... 16 8 Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo Hospital (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1044 ................................................ 20 9 Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540 ........................................................... 17 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516 ........................................................................... 12 11 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 Carlson v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879 .......................................................................... 12 12 94111 Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 214, 220............................................... 14 13 San Francisco, CA Dollinger DeAnza Assoc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1144-45........... 11 14 Henderson v. Security National Bank (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 764, 771-772 ..................................... 19 15 Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 281 ...... 14 16 In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 919 ...................................................................................... 19 Tel. 17 Institoris v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 10, 21 ....................................................... 18 18 J.W. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142 ......... 13 19 Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC, (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156 ............................................................... 13 20 Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., (2018) 5 Cal.5th 216 ............... 13 21 Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th .................................................... 19 22 People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1103 ........................................................... 17 23 Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538 .................................... 14 24 White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572; See Civil Code § 3294(b) .............................. 20 25 Statutes 26 § 3294(a)............................................................................................................................................ 19 27 al. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (p)(2) ...................................................................................................... 10 28 222979 4 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(2) ..................................................................................................... 18 2 Civ. Code § 3294(b) .......................................................................................................................... 19 3 Civ. Code § 3480 ............................................................................................................................... 16 4 Civ. Code § 3493 ............................................................................................................................... 17 5 Civ. Code § 52.1 ............................................................................................................................ 5, 10 6 Civil Code § 3294(a) ......................................................................................................................... 18 7 Civil Code § 3294(c)(1) .................................................................................................................... 18 8 Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act) ............................................................................................................ 11 9 Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c .............................................................................................. 10 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 11 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 12 94111 13 San Francisco, CA 14 15 16 Tel. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 222979 5 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Defendants ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU, and ANTHONY 2 AMBURN (hereinafter “Defendants”) submit the following memorandum of points and authorities 3 in support of their motion for summary judgment of each of the causes of action alleged against 4 Defendant Mark Aloiau and Defendant Anthony Amburn (hereinafter collectively referred to as 5 “Individual Defendants”), or in the alternative, adjudication of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action (1) 6 Assault; (2) Battery; (3) Bane Act; (4) Negligent Hiring, Retention, & Supervision; (5) Public 7 Nuisance; and (6) Conversion; and Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Defendant Encore 8 Karaoke Lounge, LLC (hereinafter “Encore”) submits in support of summary adjudication as to 9 Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action (Public Nuisance), and as to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP damages. 11 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 I. INTRODUCTION 12 94111 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”) was filed on 13 San Francisco, CA September 25, 2018, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Assault; (2) Battery; (3) Bane Act 14 [Civ. Code § 52.1]; (4) Negligent Hiring, Retention & Supervision; (5) Public Nuisance; (6) 15 Conversion; (7) Negligence. The first six (6) causes of action are alleged against Defendants 16 Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC and individual owner Defendants Mark Aloiau and Anthony Tel. 17 Amburn. 18 Plaintiff files suit against individual owners of the bar Mark Aloiau and Anthony Amburn 19 directly, despite no direct involvement in the hiring/training/firing of bar security guards, or in the 20 incident itself. Plaintiff cannot present competent evidence otherwise. Plaintiff also alleges 21 liability against Individual Defendants under an alter ego theory. Because there is no unity of 22 interest between Encore and the Individual Defendants, and because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate 23 the LLC was created to defraud, Plaintiff’s claim fails. Plaintiff also alleges a single-incident 24 assault gives rise to a claim for public nuisance, despite a factual or legal basis to support. Finally, 25 Individual Defendants, who delegated the responsibility of hiring, retention, and supervision of 26 employees, to an Encore employee; who had no involvement in the hiring, retention, and 27 supervision of Encore employees; who are not the direct employers of Encore staff; and who had no 28 222979 6 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 advance knowledge of the conduct alleged by Plaintiff, cannot be found as having engaged in 2 conduct intended to cause injury to the Plaintiff, such that their actions give rise to an award for 3 punitive damages. Similarly, Encore, a corporate employer, cannot be liable for punitive damages 4 where no managing agent or officer had advance knowledge of the conduct alleged by Plaintiff. 5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 A. The Alleged Incident 7 This personal injury lawsuit involves a fight initiated by Plaintiff Jonathan Korzekwa 8 (“Plaintiff”) (a non-patron) of a karaoke bar and the bar’s employees. The Plaintiff, who admits 9 that he was heavily intoxicated during the events in question, repeatedly demanded entry into 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP Encore Karaoke with his bicycle. Because (1) he was heavily intoxicated, (2) he did not have 11 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 identification, (3) he was insistent on entering the bar with his bicycle, and (4) he was belligerent, 12 94111 Plaintiff was appropriately denied entry into Encore Karaoke Lounge. 13 San Francisco, CA Denial of entry into Defendants’ bar did not settle well with the Plaintiff. When he was told 14 that he could not enter the bar, Plaintiff started a verbal fight with Encore staff, which devolved into 15 a fist fight. Plaintiff was asked multiple times to leave the entrance of the bar. He would not. 16 Plaintiff was escorted away from the entrance to the bar. Plaintiff claims he was thrown down a Tel. 17 flight of stairs, however his injuries are inconsistent with this allegation. In discovery, Plaintiff has 18 produced a video taken by a bystander on his telephone. It was taken once the Plaintiff had been 19 escorted out of the bar and into the street. In the video, Plaintiff is seen lunging at one of 20 Defendant’s employees and grabbing his legs. The employee took reasonable measures in self- 21 defense, and the Plaintiff released his grip on the employee. The video also shows a phantom leg 22 kicking Plaintiff. Defendants are unaware of the identity of the alleged kicker. Plaintiff sues for 23 alleged injuries sustained as a consequence of the altercation he initiated. Neither Mr. Aloiau nor 24 Mr. Amburn were present during the incident. 25 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that an unnamed employee of Encore began to physically 26 assault Plaintiff, after Plaintiff did not produce his identification as quickly as the employee wanted. 27 (Complaint ¶ 18). Plaintiff further alleges that other unnamed employees joined in the assault 28 222979 7 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 against Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶ 18). Plaintiff alleges that Individual Defendants had actual and/or 2 constructive knowledge of the acts of violence perpetrated by their employees, yet failed to take 3 steps to address the problem, including screening, training, supervision, discipline, and/or 4 termination of their employees. (Complaint ¶ 15). 1 5 B. Defendants Anthony Amburn and Mark Aloiau Have No Direct Involvement in the 6 Alleged Incident or in the Hiring/Training/Firing of Security Guards 7 Mr. Amburn has a nine (9) percent ownership interest in Encore and has been a member 8 since 2004. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” 1). Mr. Amburn does not 9 have any responsibilities or specific job with Encore. (UMF 2). Mr. Amburn had no 10 responsibilities with Encore regarding hiring, firing, or disciplining employees. (UMF 3). Mr. DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 11 Amburn was not present on the night of the incident. (UMF 34). (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 12 Mr. Aloiau is a managing member of the LLC, and has a ninety (90) percent ownership 94111 13 interest in Encore. 2 (UMF 4). Mr. Aloiau has been a managing member of Encore since November San Francisco, CA 14 16, 2004. (UMF 5). Mr. Aloiau does not work at Encore, but is a part owner of the LLC. Mr. 15 Aloiau handles financial matters with the LLC, including paying bills, paying rent, renewing leases 16 and contracts. Mr. Aloiau is not on Encore’s payroll. (UMF 6). Mr. Aloiau’s full time occupation Tel. 17 is a civil engineer with PG&E. (UMF 7). Mr. Aloiau was not present on the night of the incident. 18 (UMF 34). 19 Neither Mr. Aloiau nor Mr. Amburn have had any involvement in the hiring, retention, 20 supervision, or firing, of Encore security guards. (UMF 8). 21 As a managing member of Encore, Mr. Aloiau hires a bar manager who is charged with the 22 hiring, retention, supervision, and firing of Encore security guards. (UMF 9). The manager of the 23 bar has sole discretion when it comes to hiring and firing employees. (UMF 17). All security 24 guards were directly employed by Encore. (UMF 18). The manager provided training to the 25 guards at Encore as to security practices. (UMF 21). Mr. Tim Carmody was the bar manager of 26 1 Through discovery, Plaintiff has attempted to identify Oceanic Latu and Taniela Latu as the unnamed employees who 27 allegedly assaulted Plaintiff. 2 28 Bartender and Karaoke Jockey Matthew Bacharach owns the remaining 1% in Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC. 222979 8 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Encore from approximately 2006 to approximately 2014. (UMF 15). In approximately 2014, Mr. 2 Ken Prusso was the acting bar manager of Encore. (UMF 10). Mr. Prusso was the only individual 3 who had management responsibilities over the bar during the time of the incident. (UMF 11). In 4 early 2018, Mr. Prusso was primarily responsible for hiring employees, firing employees, and 5 taking discipline against employees, if necessary. (UMF 12). Mr. Prusso has done all of the hiring 6 and firing since he became bar manager, and did not need to run any decisions on hiring and firing 7 by anybody else. (UMF 13). 8 C. Managing Members and Managing Officers of Encore Had No Advance Knowledge of 9 Employee Violence 10 1. Members DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 11 Mr. Aloiau was not aware that Meech (Oceanic) Latu and Tee (Taniela) Latu had felony (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 12 convictions on their record prior to their hiring. (UMF 23). Mr. Amburn had no knowledge about 94111 13 whether Encore employees had felony records prior to their hiring. (UMF 24). Mr. Amburn has no San Francisco, CA 14 knowledge that Encore has hired anyone that is violent by nature. (UMF 25). Mr. Amburn has 15 never observed Encore staff being physically or verbally aggressive with patrons of the bar. (UMF 16 26). Mr. Aloiau has never observed a security guard use physical force on a patron. (UMF 27). Tel. 17 Mr. Aloiau has not received a report for the bar manager regarding situations where employees of 18 the bar may be aggressive or violent towards patrons. (UMF 28). 19 Mr. Amburn has not been told by anyone that they were a victim of an assault committed by 20 one of Encore’s employees. (UMF 29). Nobody has ever told Mr. Aloiau that they were the victim 21 of an assault committed by one of Encore’s employees. (UMF 30). Mr. Amburn has not had 22 anybody report directly to him about violence by staff. (UMF 31). Nobody has ever complained to 23 Mr. Aloiau about violent or aggressive behavior by the staff. (UMF 32). Mr. Amburn does not 24 recall ever seeing a review on Yelp about Encore security. (UMF 35). Mr. Aloiau has never seen a 25 review on Yelp that suggested or indicated that employees of Encore had been violent or aggressive 26 towards guests. (UMF 36). 27 Individual Defendants were not present at Encore Karaoke Lounge on the night of the 28 incident. (UMF 34). Mr. Amburn did not know about the alleged incident until the day after it 222979 9 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 occurred. Mr. Amburn has no knowledge of the identity of the individual who is alleged to have 2 kicked Plaintiff. (UMF 33). 3 2. Managing Agents 4 Mr. Prusso had no knowledge as to whether Oceanic Latu or Taniela Latu had any criminal 5 history. (UMF 20). Nobody ever brought to Mr. Prusso’s attention that a staff member allegedly 6 attacked a patron. (UMF 14). 7 While Mr. Carmody was the manager at Encore he never received any complaints about any 8 of the staff being violent towards any patrons. (UMF 22). Mr. Carmody never learned whether any 9 of the Latu brothers had any criminal history. (UMF 19). 10 DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP D. Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC is Properly Organized 11 (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 In October 2004, Articles of Organization were filed with the California Secretary of State 12 94111 to form Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC (“Encore”). (UMF 37). Encore submits a Statement of 13 San Francisco, CA Information and pays fees to the Secretary of State every two years. (UMF 38). Encore has its own 14 insurance and worker’s compensation benefits, and files corporate taxes. (UMF 39). Encore has its 15 own bank account, which is used for all corporate business transactions. (UMF 40). Encore 16 maintains general liability insurance. (UMF 41). Tel. 17 All of Encore’s employees and independent contractors are paid by the LLC. All contracts 18 entered into with Encore are with the LLC. (UMF 42). Mr. Aloiau and Mr. Amburn have never 19 assumed personal liability for debts or obligations of the LLC. (UMF 43). Mr. Aloiau and Mr. 20 Amburn have never used their own bank accounts for Encore’s expenses, nor have they used 21 Encore’s account for their own personal expenses. (UMF 44). Mr. Aloiau and Mr. Amburn have 22 never used property or assets for personal reasons. Neither have borrowed money from the LLC. 23 (UMF 45). 24 Encore has at all times existed and operated as an entity separate from Mr. Amburn and Mr. 25 Aloiau. 26 27 28 222979 10 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 III. ARGUMENT 2 A. Standard of Review 3 Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c, subdivision (c), states that a summary judgment 4 motion, “shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any 5 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” As has been 6 explained by the California Supreme Court, “[t]he purpose of the law of summary judgment is to 7 provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine 8 whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” Aguilar v. 9 Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. 10 Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c also allows a party to move for summary adjudication DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 11 as to one or more causes of action within an action or one or more affirmative defenses. A (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 12 defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of persuasion that one or more 94111 13 elements of the cause of action in question cannot be established or that there is a complete defense San Francisco, CA 14 thereto. Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 850. “Once the defendant…has met that burden, the burden shifts to 15 the plaintiff…to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of 16 action or defense thereto.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (p)(2); Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 849. Tel. 17 A plaintiff may not defeat summary judgment “by asserting facts based on mere speculation 18 and conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of facts.” 19 Dollinger DeAnza Assoc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1144-45. 20 B. Plaintiff Cannot Recover Against Individual Defendants on Any Cause of Action in the Complaint. 21 1. Individual Defendants Are Not Directly Liable Under Any Cause of Action 22 Individual Defendants are sued directly under the following causes of action: (1) Assault; 23 (2) Battery; (3) Bane Act [Civ. Code § 52.1]; (4) Negligent Hiring, Retention, & Supervision; (5) 24 Public Nuisance; and (6) Conversion. Individual Defendants, who were not present the night of the 25 incident, and who had no involvement in the hiring/firing of Encore security guards, did not assault, 26 batter, deprive a constitutional right, did not negligently hire, retain or supervise, did not create a 27 public nuisance, and did not convert. 28 222979 11 CASE NO.: CGC-18-570071 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ENCORE KARAOKE LOUNGE, LLC, MARK ALOIAU AND ANTHONY AMBURN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 a. Individual Defendants Did Not Assault or Batter Plaintiff 2 To maintain a civil action for assault, Plaintiff must prove that Individual Defendants acted 3 with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, or threatened to touch the plaintiff in a harmful or 4 offensive manner. Carlson v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879. To maintain a civil action 5 for batter, Plaintiff must prove that Individual Defendants intentionally did an act which resulted in 6 a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person. Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 7 Cal.App.4th 516. 8 Because neither Mr. Aloiau nor Mr. Amburn were physically present on the night of the 9 alleged incident, Individual Defendants cannot be held directly liable for these causes of action. 10 (UMF 34; 79; 124). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges “Encore Karaoke Lounge employees” attacked DE LA PEÑA & HOLIDAY LLP 11 Plaintiff. Since all security guards are employees of Encore Karaoke Lounge LLC and not of (415) 268-8000 Fax. (415) 268-8180 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2860 12 Individual Defendants, Individual Defendants cannot be held vicariously liable. (UMF 18; 63; 94111 13 108). Again, Individual Defendants had no involvement in the hiring, retention, supervision, or San Francisco, CA 14 firing, of Encore security guards. (UMF 8; 53; 98). Encore Karaoke Lounge, LLC is the proper 15 Defendant. 16 b. Individual Defendants Did Not Deprive Plaintiff of His Constitutional Rights Tel. 17 To maintain an action for a violation of Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act), Plaintiff must prove 18 that by threats, intimidation or coercion, Individual Defendants caused Plaintiff to reasonably 19 believe that if he exercised his constitutional rights, Individual Defendants would commit violence 20 against him, and that Individual Defendants had the apparent ability to carry out the threats. CACI 21 No. 3066. 22 Because neither Mr. Aloiau nor Mr. Amburn were physically present on the night of the 23 alleged in