This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/22/2020 at 07:59:35 (UTC).

ROBERT KHALILI VS APPLE INC.

Case Summary

On 09/23/2019 ROBERT KHALILI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against APPLE INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8726

  • Filing Date:

    09/23/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KHALILI ROBERT

Defendant

APPLE INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WEINBERG YEHONATAN

Defendant Attorney

SMITH GREGORY

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/5/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/2/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation for Protective Order; Order

4/14/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation for Protective Order; Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continance of Apple Inc.'s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

4/16/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continance of Apple Inc.'s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

3/23/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Gregory H. Smith in Support of Demurrer to First Amended Complaint by Defendant Apple Inc.

3/23/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Gregory H. Smith in Support of Demurrer to First Amended Complaint by Defendant Apple Inc.

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

2/28/2020: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

2/4/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/5/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

12/16/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Gregory H. Smith in Support of Motion

12/27/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Gregory H. Smith in Support of Motion

Motion for Protective Order - Motion for Protective Order

12/27/2019: Motion for Protective Order - Motion for Protective Order

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/23/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/23/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

9/23/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/23/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/24/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/26/2022
  • Hearing09/26/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • Hearing03/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Apple Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 08/05/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/05/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 07/08/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 08/05/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2020
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion for Protective Order scheduled for 07/08/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 06/12/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continance of Apple Inc.'s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by: Apple Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Robert Khalili (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/26/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Robert Khalili (Plaintiff); As to: Apple Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Robert Khalili (Plaintiff); As to: Apple Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Robert Khalili (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Robert Khalili (Plaintiff); As to: Apple Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08726    Hearing Date: August 05, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., August 5, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Khalili v. Apple, Inc. COMP. FILED: 09-23-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC08726 DISC. C/O: 02-20-21

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 03-07-21

TRIAL DATE: 03-22-21

PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Apple, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 3, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 3, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Khalili (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”).

On December 16, 2019, Defendant filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. On February 4, 2020, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence causes of action. (2/4/20 Minute Order.)

On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On March 23, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Demurrer”). No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

III. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Dem., Smith Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action in the FAC on the basis that they fail to allege sufficient facts. (Dem., p. 2.)

A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) “requires proof of: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the possibility of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress. [Citation.]” (Crouch v. Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 995, 1007.) Conduct is considered “outrageous” if it is “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-51.) “Generally, conduct will be found to be actionable where the ‘recitation of facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor and lead him to exclaim “Outrageous!” ’ [Citations.]” (Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494.) In addition, the bar for severe emotional distress is a high one, requiring that the “emotional distress [is] of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure…” [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1051.)

Plaintiff previously alleged that Doe 1, an employee of Defendant, wrongfully accused Plaintiff of harassment and that Doe 1 became “unreasonably hostile in his demeanor” toward Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶¶ 8-9.) In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Doe 1 was Apple Employee 1’s supervisor and that they were in a romantic relationship. (FAC. ¶¶ 8-9.) He also alleges that after Apple Employee 1 voluntarily hugged Plaintiff, Doe 1 “became visibly angry that his romantic partner and subordinate” hugged Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff further alleges that Doe 1 “threatened [Plaintiff] with physical harm” and he suffered a panic attack at the scene. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) However, Plaintiff’s remaining allegations for the IIED cause of action are mere recitations of the elements, not factual allegations. (See FAC ¶¶ 32-38.) In addition, Plaintiff’s facts do not demonstrate that Doe 1’s conduct amounts to extreme or outrageous conduct.

As Plaintiff has not filed an opposition demonstrating a reasonable possibility of successful amendment, he has not carried his burden. Thus, Defendant’s unopposed demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the second cause of action.

B. Negligence

As with the initial Complaint, Plaintiff appears to advance two theories of liability in his FAC, negligent hiring and premises liability. However, he fails to allege sufficient facts under either theory.

A negligence cause of action requires the plaintiff to allege defendant had a duty, defendant’s breach of that breach of duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Pereida v. HR Mobile Services (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) The elements for a premises liability cause of action are the same as those for negligence. (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Knowledge, either actual or constructive, of a dangerous condition is key to establishing liability. (Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472, 476.) Furthermore, where a plaintiff “relies on the failure to correct a dangerous condition to prove…negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the owner had notice of the defect and sufficient time to correct it.” (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s negligent hiring, training, and supervision resulted in the premises being in a “dangerous and defective condition” and that Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff of such condition. (FAC., ¶¶ 44, 46.) However, Plaintiff does not allege Defendant owed a particular duty to Plaintiff, nor that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of any alleged dangerous or defective condition.

In addition, in an action for negligent supervision, liability cannot be imposed “in the absence of knowledge by the principal that the agent or servant was a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised.” (Juarez v. Boyscouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 395.) “Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if ‘it knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’ [Citation.]” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139.) Here, the FAC does not allege that Defendant knew Doe 1 could not be trusted to work or act properly without being supervised, nor that hiring Doe 1 created a particular risk or hazard that Defendant knew or should have known. Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to constitute an action based on negligent supervision.

As Plaintiff has not filed an opposition demonstrating a reasonable possibility of successful amendment, he has not carried his burden. Thus, Defendant’s unopposed demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the third cause of action.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC08726    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. 

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Khalili (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”).

On December 16, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Demurrer”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

II. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

III. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Dem., Smith Decl., ¶¶ 2-8.) Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action on the basis that they fail to allege sufficient facts.

A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) “requires proof of: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the possibility of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress. [Citation.]” (Crouch v. Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 995, 1007.) Conduct is considered “outrageous” if it is “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-51.) “Generally, conduct will be found to be actionable where the ‘recitation of facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor and lead him to exclaim “Outrageous!” ’ [Citations.]” (Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494.) In addition, the bar for severe emotional distress is a high one, requiring that the “emotional distress [is] of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure…” [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1051.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Doe 1, an employee of Defendant, wrongfully accused Plaintiff of harassment and that Doe 1 became “unreasonably hostile in his demeanor.” (Compl., ¶¶ 8-9.) However, the rest of Plaintiff’s allegations for his IIED cause of action are mere recitations of the IIED elements, not facts. (See Compl., ¶¶ 27-32.) Plaintiff has not alleged any facts regarding Defendant’s employee’s conduct that amount to extreme and outrageous conduct or facts showing Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.

Thus, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action.

B. Negligence

Plaintiff alleges that “a substantial factor that contributed to the beating and injuries sustained by Plaintiff was [Defendant’s], negligent supervision of its agents and employees, and [Defendant’s] failure to provide adequate security for its patrons.” (Compl., ¶ 34.) Plaintiff appears to advance two theories of liability, negligent hiring and premises liability, but fails to allege sufficient facts under either theory.

A negligence cause of action requires the plaintiff to allege defendant had a duty, defendant’s breach of that breach of duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Pereida v. HR Mobile Services (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) The elements for a premises liability cause of action are the same as those for negligence. (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Here, Plaintiff has not alleged Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff or that Defendant breached that duty.

In addition, in an action for negligent supervision, liability cannot be imposed “in the absence of knowledge by the principal that the agent or servant was a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised.” (Juarez v. Boyscouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 395.) Here, Plaintiff has not alleged Defendant knew its employee could not be trusted to work without being supervised. Thus, he has not alleged sufficient facts to constitute an action based on negligent supervision.

Thus, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the second cause of action.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.