This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2021 at 17:09:18 (UTC).

JANE DOE VS TOKYO VILLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/25/2018 JANE DOE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TOKYO VILLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, JON R. TAKASUGI and HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2285

  • Filing Date:

    10/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DOE JANE

Defendants

TOKYO VILLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC.

CHAVEZ FRANCISCO AKA FRANK CHAVEZ

JENKINS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

URIBE JOHN J

SEYFNIA FARZAD

SHYER LISA NOEL

LABRIE D VICTORIA

 

Court Documents

Judgment - JUDGMENT PROPOSED JUDGMENT

1/22/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT PROPOSED JUDGMENT

Request for Dismissal

2/16/2021: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY TOKYO VILLA C...)

1/14/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY TOKYO VILLA C...)

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

1/14/2021: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY TOKYO VILLA C...) OF 01/14/2021

1/14/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY TOKYO VILLA C...) OF 01/14/2021

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PATRICK ZACHARY

12/31/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PATRICK ZACHARY

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CATHERINE ACQUAZZINO, CCAM, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

12/31/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CATHERINE ACQUAZZINO, CCAM, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

12/31/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TOKYO VILLA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORI

12/31/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TOKYO VILLA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORI

Separate Statement

12/31/2020: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PATRICK ZAKHARY

1/4/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PATRICK ZAKHARY

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CATHERINE ACQUAZZINO, CCAM, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

1/4/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CATHERINE ACQUAZZINO, CCAM, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/4/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JENKINS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A

1/4/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JENKINS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A

Separate Statement

1/4/2021: Separate Statement

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DECLARATION

1/7/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DECLARATION

Exhibit List

1/7/2021: Exhibit List

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO SEPARATE STATEMENT

1/7/2021: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO SEPARATE STATEMENT

125 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/21/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 40; Jury Trial (/Mandatory Settlement Conference pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1380) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (With prejudice, Entire action); Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketJudgment (Proposed Judgment); Filed by Tokyo Villa Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant); JENKINS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (filed by Defendant Jenkins) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (filed by Tokyo Villa Condominum Association) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by JENKINS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tokyo Villa C...) of 01/14/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tokyo Villa C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
159 More Docket Entries
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketPlaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Tokyo Villa Homeowners Association, Inc.'s General Demurrer to Complaint; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketPlaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Tokyo Villa Homeowners Association Inc.'s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of D. Victoria LaBrie re: Good Faith Attempt to Meet and Confer); Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff); Francisco Chavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff); Tokyo Villa Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketOrder (By the Court overruling Demurrer, and granting Motion to Strike); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff); Tokyo Villa Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketAnswer (to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff); Tokyo Villa Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STCV02285    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Tokyo Villa Homeowners Association Inc.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Jane Doe

Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants Tokyo Villa Homeowners Association Inc. (“Defendant”) and Jenkins Properties Management Company (“Jenkins”)--Jenkins was Defendant’s managing agent. Plaintiff alleges that she was raped by an agent/employee of Defendant, when he was performing maintenance work in her residence and her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges causes of action for:

1) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention of Employee

2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty

3) Negligence

4) Battery

5) Sexual Battery

6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

7) Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Jenkins only)

Defendant filed a demurrer as to the Second through Sixth causes of action and a motion to attorneys’ fees.

Duplicative: Defendant argues that all of Plaintiff’s causes of actions, except the first, are duplicative and that the demurrer should be sustained on this ground. Case law is mixed about whether this is a proper ground for a demurrer. (See Award Metals, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1135 [permitting a demurrer where the duplicative cause of action added nothing by way of fact or theory of recovery.].) Conversely, Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 889-890, held that duplication is not a ground on which a demurrer may be sustained and that “[t]his is the sort of defect that, if it justifies any judicial intervention at all, is ordinarily dealt with most economically at trial, or on a dispositive motion such as summary judgment.”

The Court will not sustain the demurer on this ground. The Court does not agree with Defendant’s argument that all of Plaintiff’s causes of action are the same facts and theories. Although, all the causes of action arise from the same nucleus of facts each cause of action is a different theory of recovery. For example, the sexual battery claim requires that the victim suffer sexually offensive contact, which is not an element of the battery claim. Similarly, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim requires proving elements different than those of the battery claims: This ground the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Second Cause of Action, Breach of Fiduciary Duty: OVERRULED

Defendant argues that they have no fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. Defendant cites to Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, in which a plaintiff sued the homeowners association after she was assaulted by a criminal. Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to provide adequate lighting outside of her unit and forced her to take down lighting that she herself had installed. (Id. at p. 495.) The court held that there is dual relationship between a homeowners association and residents. The relationships are one of director-shareholder and landlord-tenant. A landlord and tenant do not generally have a fiduciary relationship. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleged that the homeowners association’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) created a fiduciary duty. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument because “plaintiff alleged that the Association, as a landlord, breached its duty to her as a tenant rather than as a shareholder. Indeed, the defendants fulfilled their duty to plaintiff as a shareholder by strictly enforcing the provision in the CC&R’s that prohibited alteration of the common areas except with the prior written consent of the board.” (Id. at p. 513-514.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he duties and powers of a homeowners association are controlled both by statute and by the association’s governing documents.” Ostayan v. Nordhoff Townhomes Assn., Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 120, 126-127.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged her breach of fiduciary duty claim. Unlike in Francis, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendant violated a fiduciary duty arising from a landlord-tenant relationship. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated their duty under the CC&Rs by failing to supervise its agent/employees. (SAC, ¶¶ 46-51.)

Third through Sixth Causes of Action: OVERRULED

Plaintiff argues that Defendant is vicariously liable or ratified their employee’s tortious acts.

Defendant argues that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply. “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for his employee’s torts committed within the scope of the employment.” Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons (1986) 41 Cal.3d 962, 967. As acknowledged by Plaintiff, the general rule is that an employer is not vicariously liable for a sexual assault committed by an employee. Sexual assault is not per se beyond the scope of employment but for it to fall within the scope of employment, it must be an outgrowth of the employment and the risk of tortious injury must be inherent in the working environment or typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise the employer has undertaken. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 298.

Determining whether an employee has acted within the scope of employment is usually a question of fact. It can be decided as a question of law when “the relationship between an employee’s work and wrongful conduct is so attenuated that a jury could not reasonably conclude that the act was within the scope of employment.” Maria D. v. Westec Residential Sec. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 125, 137-138. A few courts have determined that sexual assault did not fall within the scope of employment at the demurrer stage. (See Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 133, Debbie Reynolds Prof. Rehearsal Studios v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 222; and Daza v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 260 [respectively holding that sexual assault was not within the scope of employment of a school janitor, dance instructor, and guidance counselor.].) Although a finding that an employee’s sexual assault was within the scope of their employment is exceedingly rare, the Court cannot at this stage of the proceedings decide the issue as a matter of law.

Accordingly, on this ground the demurrer is OVERRULED.

“As an alternate theory to respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for an employee’s act where the employer either authorized the tortious act or subsequently ratified an originally unauthorized tort…. Whether an employer has ratified an employee’s conduct is generally a factual question.” C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1110-1111. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged ratification. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew their employee was a violent predator with a criminal background, that they were aware that the employee assaulted Plaintiff in January/February, and that Defendant failed to immediately terminate the employee who subsequently raped Plaintiff. (SAC, ¶¶ 67-70.)

Motion to Strike: Defendant moves to strike references to vicarious liability from the SAC. Defendant raises the same argument about respondeat superior that was rejected in the demurrer section. Accordingly, the motion to strike references to vicarious liability is DENIED.

Defendant also seeks to strike out attorneys’ fees from the body of the SAC and the prayer.

Strike Standard: The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (CCP § 436(a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. CCP § 436(b). It may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend after granting a motion to strike a complaint if the defect is curable. CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146-1147.

Both parties acknowledge that under Civil Code § 5975 a prevailing party can be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees, if the action is to enforce the association’s governing documents. Plaintiff argues that the instant action is to enforce the association’s governing documents, the CC&Rs, because Defendant failed to ensure that their employee properly performed and to competently delegate their power to Defendant Jenkins, which was required by the CC&Rs. The Court agrees with Defendant that it is unclear which portion of the governing documents Plaintiff alleges she is seeking to enforce.

Accordingly, the motion to strike references to attorneys’ fees is GRANTED.

Conclusion: Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED, while the Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

Defendant to provide notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JENKINS PROPERTIES MANAGEMETN COMPANY INC. A CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LABRIE D VICTORIA

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHYER LISA NOEL